Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::: I do not support this phrasing, which is written vaguely enough to carry a negative connotation against Misplaced Pages, whereas the source article is describing Misplaced Pages positively, saying that Misplaced Pages is more effective at fighting fake news than Facebook and Twitter. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 13:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
::: I do not support this phrasing, which is written vaguely enough to carry a negative connotation against Misplaced Pages, whereas the source article is describing Misplaced Pages positively, saying that Misplaced Pages is more effective at fighting fake news than Facebook and Twitter. — ''''']''' <small>]</small>'' 13:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
:Isi96 has now added "In 2019, The Daily Caller, along with One America News Network and The Gateway Pundit, were deprecated by the Misplaced Pages community for publishing false information." It's neither correct nor sourced but I won't advocate reverting unless other editors do. ] (]) 14:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
:Isi96 has now added "In 2019, The Daily Caller, along with One America News Network and The Gateway Pundit, were deprecated by the Misplaced Pages community for publishing false information." It's neither correct nor sourced but I won't advocate reverting unless other editors do. ] (]) 14:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
== Politifact cite ==
To support the article's statement that the Daily Caller "has published false stories" ] added a of the Politifact item . This concerns me. First, compare Politifact's claim about what Daily Caller said {{tq|In a story headlined as an exclusive, a Daily Caller reporter wrote "Former President Bill Clinton and his Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) distributed ‘watered-down’ HIV/AIDS drugs to patients in sub-Saharan Africa."}} to which has no period after "Africa", the sentence goes on for a while and actually ends with {{tq|... according to a draft congressional report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation.}} Second, a later source appeared saying, much like what the report said, that a company did send bad HIV/AIDS drugs to Africa and there was an association with the Clinton Foundation: read of an interview with a journalist covering the pharmaceutical industry (]). I did not revert Isi96's bold edit, I am checking first whether anyone else would agree with me that it's bad. ] (]) 18:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Daily Caller article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Daily Caller article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.
The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
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 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 is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet 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.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture 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.Internet cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Internet cultureTemplate:WikiProject Internet cultureInternet culture
As other editors have pointed out, the current article is a POV mess. With a lede that only chooses to summarize the most negative aspects of the article and essentially characterizes the subject as racist fake news, to use of words like "bogus" and "legitimate news outlets" in the main body, this article is basically a hit job. Like TFD said: "some editors rightly or wrongly see the Daily Caller as a right-wing propaganda organ that routinely publishes false or misleading stories in order to discredit Democrats. However we cannot say or imply that unless we can should that is the consensus opinion in reliable sources". Keepcalmandchill (talk) 03:25, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The article is something of a mess, but not for POV reasons. Most of the WP:RS coverage (what there is of it) has a negative tone, and so that naturally translates over here, regardless of the supposed partisanship of the editors who have worked on it. When they hired a lawyer a while back to come here and suggest ways to change the article, we looked for sources documenting that the Caller had broken significant stories or generally done things taken seriously. There wasn't much (I recall the lawyer suggested stories they'd done on the Sackler pharmaceutical family, but nobody could turn up WP:SECONDARY coverage on that — I'd have no objection to incorporating it if such sources did turn up, of course). A more fundamental issue, I'd say, is that the article is rather long and overstuffed. Condensing down excessive details of years-past incidents might be a good idea. XOR'easter (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
XOR'easter, Well then there is the option of doing what the aforementioned editor also suggested, which is to have it "presented as a stub: it's a news source, this is who publishes it, this is its political orientation, this is its circulation or reach, the end". I would prefer not to do that since I'm generally an inclusionist, but it would solve both problems. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
XOR'easter, I suggest a three-section structure (1) History, which covers all organisational and staff topics; (2) Political stance, with reliable sources on the political leanings of the site; and (3) Controversies; which covers all notable incidents that the website has been criticized for, with a focus on more recent cases. The lede should then give equal coverage to all three. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
XOR'easter, Okay, then we can put it under History and keep the Staff & Organisation where they are. I don't see how having a general controversies section is POV, but having two sections devoted to specific controversies is not. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 04:42, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Most media coverage of the media, celebrities and some other subjects are mostly negative. That's because reporting is generally happens when they fail. No one's going to write a story for example about how CNN accurately reported the news last night. I think in this case we should look to tertiary sources as a template for determining the weight of different aspects. There is an article by Aaron Moore, who is an associate professor of journalism, in the Encyclopedia of Social Media and Politics (SAGE Publishing 2013), p. 345, which could help establish the weight to provide different aspects of this topic. Of course it would be better to get something more recent. TFD (talk) 04:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
The Four Deuces, Thanks for that resource! They seem to focus on characterizing general aspects of the site (with a focus on social media due to the nature of the publication), so this should probably be the main direction here, as well. Using other news sources as the main reference for content seems problematic because of (1) the nature of newsworthy topics, which you alluded to, as well as (2) the fact that they are literally competitors, and hence have little incentive to be fair. I think media watchdogs and other sources without a dog in the fight should be the priority. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:02, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
2013 was ... a long time ago in American politics. I'm not sure that particular source is very helpful, though WP:TERTIARY would in general be the way to go. Also, I don't quite follow the "competitors" bit; it seems to me equally reasonable to say that watchdogs have, well, a "dog in the fight" because they need to criticize in order to be profitable. XOR'easter (talk) 05:08, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
XOR'easter, I guess there are some dogs that are more looking for fights than others, but in any case, I think we should determine the appropriate structure of the article before getting into appropriate sources. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:22, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
It should be possible to find more recent comparable sources, although they probably aren't readily accessible on Google books. Although 7 years is a long time in politics, I don't imagine that the general view of the DC would have changed. A lot of the negative information in this article is from 2011-2013, so would have been known by Moore.
As for the competitors bit, my point was that using media stories to establish weight may not be right, because news media are more likely to focus on negative stories. That's not because they are competitors but because it is more newsworthy. It's Man bites dog: "an aphorism in journalism that describes how an unusual, infrequent event (such as a man biting a dog) is more likely to be reported as news than an ordinary, everyday occurrence with similar consequences, such as a dog biting a man.
Keepcalmandchill, we can't determine the structure of the article before getting into sources, since sources should determine the structure of the article per weight. How else could we determine the structure of the article?
The Four Deuces, Well, I suggested above having a three-section approach: History, Staff & organisation, and Political leaning. The current content could be organised under those labels, and then slowly replaced with sources that are most appropriate. This would provide some immediate relief to the current issues of the article, while allowing a more thorough rewriting to take place over a longer period of time. It seems to me the alternative is to rewrite everything from scratch, which would be a very intensive process if done within a reasonable timeframe. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
A three-section approach like that sounds fairly similar to how the article is organized now, apart from some details (e.g., "Environmental issues" might as well be a subsection or two of "Political stances"). Sorry if I'm not following — it's often tricky to discuss such things without an actual draft in hand. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 06:19, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
XOR'easter, Yes, it's not too different from now, making for an easy first step. I mainly object to having separate sections for the two controversies for reasons I laid out above. Some of the content under "overview" in History could go under the Staff/organisation section, as well, but that's not a POV problem. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 06:37, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
We stick to RS coverage of this organization, as well as what the body of the article says. A substantial part of the body focuses on this organization's promotion of false stories, as well as the white supremacists behind the website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 10:14, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Giving separate sections to climate denialism and white supremacist connections is already WP:UNDUE. They should be covered by the existing sections, maybe Political leanings for environmental issues, and Staff & contributors for the white supremacists. The POV language that I highlighted is not justified by the sources even as they are. Keepcalmandchill (talk) 13:04, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
There is no source for "frequently." That's a judgment of Misplaced Pages editors and violates no original research and WP:WEASEL. We can of course say they "frequently" publish such stories if reliable sources say that. Technically, all news sources "frequently" publish publish false information, which is why the NYT publishes a corrections section every day. An expert however would only use the term if the degree of inaccuracy was relatively high, particularly if retractions were not published. So lets leave that to experts to determine. TFD (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Snooganssnoogans, there is a distinction between reliable sourcing, which you brought up, and weight, which is what we were discussing. Weight is the degree of attention that we provide for each aspect of the publication. I have suggested we use a tertiary source, per WP:TERTIARY: "Policy: Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources." A suitable tertiary source would be similar to the one I presented - an encyclopedia published by an academic publisher, rather than say its entry in Correct the Record. The problem with the source I found is age, it's from 2013. But other editors with better access to more recent sources could be helpful in finding recent tertiary sources. TFD (talk) 07:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)
Keepcalmandchill As per the template's own guidelines, This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true: In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. The template was removed because the discussion went dormant - it does not matter whether or not it was "resolved." To avoid the discussion becoming dormant, I suggest that you propose a specific, actionable change to the article, which can then be specifically discussed and consensus reached on it one way or the other. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:43, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
there is no proof or facts to support a majority of claims on this definition of Daily Caller. You have an obligation to your readers to only provide factual information about any and all subjects on your website. 143.79.138.211 (talk) 21:48, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The lede asserts that
The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories.
The rest of the statement is sufficiently supported by the body of the article, but "frequently" needs a proper source, or else to be changed to something less strong, like "on multiple occasions" (or simply removed). Searching for the word in this talk page shows that this point has been raised and generally endorsed previously, but the actual change was never made, it seems.
This was removed; I think I see the concern, but ultimately it seems fair:
In late 2019, The Daily Caller was deprecated by the English Misplaced Pages community for publishing "falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories".
It's referenced to an adequate secondary source, which is what we need before we can write about Misplaced Pages and its community goings-on. I'd change the quotation to a paraphrase, on general principles, and I'd bring it more in line with the source by mentioning the other deprecated outlets that the Haaretz story includes. They don't single out TDC, and neither should we. XOR'easter (talk) 15:39, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
It was added in a bold edit today by Isi96, which I partially reverted explaining "... A quote of some Misplaced Pages editors, without attributing it to some Misplaced Pages editors, is against WP:RS/QUOTE. ..." The words are inside quote marks in the Haaretz article, the complete sentence is: "Among the sources newly named as unreliable for Misplaced Pages were a number of pro-Trump outlets – for example, One America News, The Daily Caller and The Gateway Pundit – which were banned due to their coverage of American politics and for disseminating “falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories”. It's not from this RfC but is the exact wording used by an essay-class Misplaced Pages page for One America News. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
That's the exact phrasing used in the WP:RSP entry for One America News, and describing the consensus recorded at WP:RSP as the view of "the English Misplaced Pages community" is adequate, I'd say. On the whole, I tend to prefer paraphrasing bits like this (they're not exactly deathless prose that needs to be preserved), but apart from tweaks of that sort, the statement seems fine for inclusion here, particularly if we make clear that TDC wasn't the only publication affected. XOR'easter (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
That's not bad. I might shorten it to ...community, for publishing misinformation about American politics (summarizing that paragraph and the next in the Haaretz article). XOR'easter (talk) 14:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
XOR'easter, I'm not really a fan of self-referential material like that. Better to use the references in the deprecation discussion to document its unreliability, and leave it at that, IMO. Guy (help! - typo?) 15:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't particularly like self-referential material, but in this particular case, I think there's enough of an intermediary that it's acceptable. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Isi96, thanks for clearly suggesting an alternative. Though it's possible that Mr Benjakob was looking at something other than the essay-class page that I mentioned, we can't find it, so it seems we agree that the quote is about One America News. If so, it is not about The Daily Caller. Therefore the only words in the sentence that definitely refer to The Daily Caller are "pro-Trump" and "banned due to their coverage of American politics". And it wasn't "late 2019" if a February 2019 RfC is meant, and "Misplaced Pages community" is hurrah wording, and putting Misplaced Pages inside double brackets is overlinking. So a validly-sourced sentence would be: "In 2019 The Daily Caller was banned from Misplaced Pages for political reasons." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:57, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
"Political reasons" is awfully vague; the Haaretz source is clear that the reason was not some nebulous notion of political unacceptability, but factual unreliability on political matters. Omitting the direct quote avoids the tricky point that it's specifically about OAN instead of TDC. (The WP:RSP entry for the former mentions falsehoods, conspiracy theories, and intentionally misleading stories; for the latter, it says false or fabricated information.) Describing the result of an RfC as a "community" decision seems neutral enough. XOR'easter (talk) 15:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I do not support this phrasing, which is written vaguely enough to carry a negative connotation against Misplaced Pages, whereas the source article is describing Misplaced Pages positively, saying that Misplaced Pages is more effective at fighting fake news than Facebook and Twitter. — Newslingertalk13:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Isi96 has now added "In 2019, The Daily Caller, along with One America News Network and The Gateway Pundit, were deprecated by the Misplaced Pages community for publishing false information." It's neither correct nor sourced but I won't advocate reverting unless other editors do. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Politifact cite
To support the article's statement that the Daily Caller "has published false stories" Isi96 added a cite of the Politifact item Conservative website wrongly ties Clinton Foundation to bad HIV/AIDS drugs. This concerns me. First, compare Politifact's claim about what Daily Caller said In a story headlined as an exclusive, a Daily Caller reporter wrote "Former President Bill Clinton and his Clinton Health Access Initiative (CHAI) distributed ‘watered-down’ HIV/AIDS drugs to patients in sub-Saharan Africa." to the Daily Caller sentence which has no period after "Africa", the sentence goes on for a while and actually ends with ... according to a draft congressional report obtained by The Daily Caller News Foundation. Second, a later source appeared saying, much like what the report said, that a company did send bad HIV/AIDS drugs to Africa and there was an association with the Clinton Foundation: read the transcript of an interview with a journalist covering the pharmaceutical industry (Katherine Eban). I did not revert Isi96's bold edit, I am checking first whether anyone else would agree with me that it's bad. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
.svg){kind=icon}
Done. I've changed "The Daily Caller has frequently published false stories." to "The Daily Caller has published false stories on multiple occasions." in Special:Diff/1005207099. Thanks for suggesting this. — Newslinger talk 14:30, 6 February 2021 (UTC)