Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:48, 26 July 2007

Media Unassessed

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 Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? 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

Biography Unassessed

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 has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.

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

Archives

Archive 1 - Through October 2006 Archive 2 - 25 October - 26 February 2006

Global Warming Denier

• Crackpot, have you ever listened to Drudge's radio show? The "I don't buy it" (in ref to global warming) is a direct quote from one of his shows. No, I do not have the transcript. I suggest you stop micro-editing each and every addition to this page, discarding everything for which there is no web citation. Have a look at the page on Michael Savage, where numerous statements describing his opinions are allowed without a citation for each and every one. If Drudge has a different opinion on GW to what I have stated, rest assured, some other soul will happen along to correct me. This page does not need your obsessive policing and reversions for little or no reason. Skopp (Talk) 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I surprise myself with my deftness. Here is the podcast containing the opinion cited: http://media.libsyn.com/media/drudgepodcast/Drudge_20070225_1.mp3 Skopp (Talk) 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen up, Buttercup.

1. Before my one edit today, I have not edited this article since December 7, 2006. If anyone is obsessively editing this article, it is you, with your attempts to add gay references, etc.
2. Calling me Crackpot is clearly a personal attack, as is accusing me of obsessively editing when the edit history clearly shows that you are completely full of shit.
3. Reinserting (still) unsourced material that has been previously removed from a biography of a living person is a violation of WP:BLP, and a blockable offence. You've violated WP:BLP countless times on this article in the past, and I have not sought any sanctions against you. I think you have misjudged my previous generosity, and believe that you can just attack me with cute names and a completely unfounded accusation of "obsession", and not suffer concequences for that action. You are wrong.
4. My edit history is quite rich and varied. Yours appears to be heavily weighted in an interest in Matt Drudge and zoophilia. I think someone here does have unhealthy obsessions, and it isn't me.

If you think I'm obsessed, wait twenty minutes. You're about to get into a pissing match with someone who has a full bladder. I hope you have your slicker on. - Crockspot 05:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding to what you see as a personal attack with your own personal attack hardly paints you in a good light, does it now? If you want to challenge my latest edit, make sure you have some basis other than your usual whims. I suggest you try to calm down and regain some objectivity here. Your swearing and threats seem to denote a complete lack of the spirit required for an editor! Skopp (Talk) 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding the valid points I listed above does little to endear you to other editors as well. You have nothing to say about accusing me of obsessively editing an article that I did not edit for two and a half months? You are chronically uncivil to other editors, as you have been with me from your very first communication with me on your talk page several months ago. I've had enough of it, and you now have my complete and undivided attention. Start acting like an adult, and you'll be treated like one. - Crockspot 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not revert my addition again! You are starting an edit war over a non-contentious inclusion that I can back up in every way. 1) MD thinks GW is bunk - everyone who reads/listens to him knows that that is true, and 2) GW is a fact supported by a majority of the world's climate scientists, and if you stopped listening to right wing talk radio for a second and read the scientific opinion on climate change you'd conceded that too. Back off, full bladder. This is not a place for you to settle grudges. Skopp (Talk) 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, since you seem to have absolutely no idea what the IPCC actually is: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the United Nations in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human induced climate change. About 1,000 experts from around the world are involved in drafting, revising and finalizing IPCC reports. About 2,500 experts take part in the report review process. Thus, the IPCC represents a global consensus of the world's climate change experts." Now if you can find a respectable source (not Fox News) disputing the stature of the IPCC, I'll change the wording. Skopp (Talk) 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed, as you have still not sourced it. Instead of continuing to attack me personally, why don't you just cite a source like I have asked? You are headed for a BLP block if you insist on reinserting this statement without even trying to source it. - Crockspot 16:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Skopp--For the last time, Misplaced Pages is not your soap-box! The Matt Drudge article is not an appropriate place for your personal crusade or for social activism. Giles22 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a completely inappropriate comment. My edit is absolutely accurate and acceptable. Are there any editors watching this who are agenda-free and can input something? Crackspot's user page actually states that he's a conservative with an agenda of making sure nobody inserts anything of which he doesn't approve on the pages of Conservatives -- I mean, how blatant can you get? Anyone non-partisan here who can chime in? Sheez. I mean here we have two editors (Crock and Giles) who regard the IPCC as a non-consensual organization, and the stating that it is a globally consensual body as editorial opinion!! Am I in cloud cuckoo land or what? Skopp (Talk) 17:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting my comments. I am not dipsuting the content of what you post. In fact, I agree with it (I am not a climate change skeptic). I am still, however, disconcerted with you inserting a global warming argument into this article about MATT DRUDGE. That is editorializing and social crusading which simply does not belong here. Giles22 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, the heading of the section is Criticisms if I am not mistaken. I was struck by how many criticisms I have come across on the blogosphere and elsewhere about Drudge's almost daily lampooning of anything to do with Global Warming. It's become one of his major themes, and it's is irking the hell out of a lot of people out there (not me, BTW, because what do I care about the tiny thoughts of someone who barely scraped through high school?). I simply inserted the obvious edit: MD tries to debunk GW; scientific world (vast majority) disagree. I see no problem with this at all. There is no "global warming argument" anywhere to be seen! Reading comprehension a problem for you? Skopp (Talk) 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't care whether you agree or disagree with him. If you question one of his edits, you're fair game for attack.K. Scott Bailey 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on now, Bailey, I thought you were playing the White Knight here? That didn't last long. Now it's into the fray with sides taken, eh? Skopp (Talk) 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

When you felt the need to personally attack me after my first post in this discussion, it told me all I needed to know about what you're all about. You've personally attacked anyone who dared disagree with your many edits. There's no place for that kind of behavior in Misplaced Pages. Therefore, if anyone lodges a complaint against you, I'll be the first in line to support it.K. Scott Bailey 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By my count I "attacked" your second post, leaving your (completely unfair and overblown) description of my Talk posts as "reprehensible" untouched. So once again, where's the reading comprehension, where's the accuracy, where's the fairness? And I'm not attacking you anyway, just commenting on your complete transformation from arbiter to stone-thrower. For shame. Skopp (Talk) 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin. In fact, I'm rather new to Misplaced Pages. You must be confusing me with someone else. As I said before, based upon the behavior you've exhibited towards Crockspot and others (as well as myself), I will support any complaint lodged against you. It's nothing personal, but is simply based upon what I've observed from you in this discussion.K. Scott Bailey 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that was mistaken identity. As for your views about me, my findings are that on pages such as these, populated as they are by editors who are mostly foot-soldiers for their political parties *cough*teapot*cough (yeah, even with the assumption of good faith, sadly), I find your contrived outrage very easy to ignore. Have a good evening, won't you? Skopp (Talk) 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a certain irony in YOU accusing OTHERS of being "foot soldiers for their political parties", though I have to say that you seem to be an equal-opportunity personal attack artist. I have no agenda at Misplaced Pages other than making articles better. Seeing editors like you personally attack everyone who questions your edits, and insult and patronize me like you have in your last post simply makes it even easier to support any complaint lodged against you as a result of your behavior. I find your actual boorishness very easy to deplore.K. Scott Bailey 04:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There, you've made 4 posts now, all of which have as their intent the inflammation of an issue that's already been resolved. Nice start, newbie editor. You're just what WP needs. Pshaw! Skopp (Talk)

You can choose to lie about the intent of my posts all you want. My intent to support any complaint Crockspot (or the others you've chosen to personally attack in this discussion) choose to lodge against you stands. And for the record, Crockspot was READY to let it go when you went on the attack again. I hardly call that "an issue that's already been resolved."K. Scott Bailey 04:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Bailey, it's evident to anyone who reads Skopp's sour, inflamatory comments that he is no more than a bitter editor that thrives on being disliked. There's no use reasoning with him or even responding to these comments because all it brings is more of the same. You'll see -- just watch the response that this comment gets! ;) Giles22 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to tell you how I approve of your last edit, and how I was on my way to retract the complaint I just filed on you, but here you are attacking me again. Stop referring to me as Crackpot. (BTW, I still do not have a problem with your last edit, because it is neutral, and well sourced. What I DO have a problem with is your behavior.) - Crockspot 17:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg pardon, but Crackpot is how I was parsing your username, reading quickly. Isn't "crockspot" a sardonic play on that word anyway? Skopp (Talk) 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• And my user page is not even close to how you charactarize it. Stop with the attacks, stop with the lies. I only ask for sources. You have finally provided them, and a neutral wording. The issue is done, so stop digging your grave further with deceit and attacks. - Crockspot 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should re-read your user page. "As a conservative, it is true that I am more likely to proactively seek out poorly sourced negative information about conservatives." It's clear you joined WP with an agenda, unlike me. Skopp (Talk) 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We must not be reading the same page. I'm just being honest in disclosing that I'm a conservative, but that it does not affect my judgement when it comes to obvious bias of any kind. If you think that you don't have an agenda, then you're deluded. Now, please, again, stop calling me Crackpot. I'm freaking agreeing with your last version of the statement in the article. What more do you want? Instead of attacking me further, you should be poring over this page and retracting all the unfounded attacks you have made against me and others, and apologizing to me for misusing my name. If that were to happen, I would still be inclined to withdraw my compliaint. But if you are going to continue to reinforce the complaints I have already made, then my complaint will stand. - Crockspot 17:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should re-read this exchange. You've personally attacked ANYONE who dared question your edits. You've continually called Crockspot "Crackpot", which is certainly not simply an honest mistake, even assuming good faith. You've done it continually throughout this discussion, regardless of the fact that his ACTUAL username has been posted at the end of every post he's made. As someone who is probably closer to you politically than to Crockspot, I still feel your behavior has been reprehensible. As such, if Crockspot needs support in his complaint against you, I will certainly provide it.K. Scott Bailey 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RKevins, I do not have to cite that MD is criticised for his attitudes on GW. That's a given, the blogosphere is alive with condemnation. Do a search. But I'll find other sources if you get anal about it. Some of the citations you deleted are from the WP IPCC article itself, so that shows how absurd your reversion was. Non-negotiated edits borne of animosity are degrading the WP, so please, discuss here before making wholesale changes to text everyone else is happy with. Skopp (Talk) 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism removed because "Sean Prophet" is not a notable source and the American Chronicle is a joke (except for AP stories it carries, which does not include your link). You can surely find a story criticizing Drudge for his stance on global warming, though I think you may be giving undue weight to a relatively minor aspect of his biography. Also, we should be careful to satisfy BLP's criteria regarding sources. I will look through Lexis, since Google News is not producing much. Blog sources are not likely lnotable. I (along with everyone else) should remove improperly sourced material for living people, Skopp. That is why it was removed without discussion, per guidelines. Rkevins 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, your edit summary, that I removed "consensus text" is absurd. If this discussion appears to reach a consensus, it is against your revisions. I also searched Lexis-Nexis for sources from reliable, notable sources criticizing Drudge for his stance on global warming.

• Searching in "general news"/"magazines and journals", FULL TEXT for "Matt Drudge" AND "global warming" over "all available dates" yielded seven hits. None criticized him (they usually weren't even related).
• Searching in "general news"/"major newspapers", FULL TEXT for "Matt Drudge" AND "global warming" over "all available dates" yielded seventeen hits. None criticized him (they usually weren't even related).

I don't see how we can include it. Rkevins 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• LOL, way to go, my conservative friends! Take a topic of which almost everyone is aware (like MD's pathetic and dangerous attempt to "debunk" global warming, the biggest threat to mankind) and for which thousands of negative blog comments can be found, say that blogs are unacceptable sources (even if one can cite a very large number on the topic), then run to Lexis-Nexis (which only carries text written by people who consider MD far too lowly to warrant critical comment anyway), and use that as justification to pull a valid comment that puts your boy in a bad light (yes, "your boy" -- just for referenence: RKevins is the sort of guy who thinks the impeached crook and liar Nixon was "underappreciated" -- see his user page). I don't know, they say WP is getting totally borked by this kind of dreadful editorial warring, and I'm starting to agree. I fear WP is under dire threat, so much dishonest (e.g. the story about the WP senior editor who lied about his credentials), editors who are card-carrying members of certain parties (I care for none of them) and will fight tirelessly to sanitize even the shadow of a critical comment from a biography, always shouting "BLP, BLP!!" as their cover, and so on. Stinks. Skopp (Talk) 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one whit what you think "stinks", it's what can be accurately sourced. And contrary to your apparent belief, blogs are not "reliable sources", no matter how many make a claim. While I don't doubt that MD actually believes that the threat Global Warming is overblown--it's not an uncommon stance to take--unless you can find something other than blogs to support it, it doesn't belong in this article. Additionally, it's quite ironic how you accuse others of what is apparent in your OWN post above. Use of the phrase "your boy", personally attacking RKevins, calling other editors "card-carrying members of certain parties", and on and on frame you as something far less than a neutral observer. Your point regarding "critical comment" is poorly made as well, since Misplaced Pages articles are not the place for people to make "comments" of any type, whether critical or otherwise. Misplaced Pages articles are to be encyclopedic in nature. If you want to start a competing portal meant to critically examine the life and careers of public figures you dislike, that's your right. It has no place on Misplaced Pages, no matter how much you think that "stinks."K. Scott Bailey 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Accurately sourced" - mp3s of Drudge's own broadcasts are considered inadequate, published comments on non-blog sites are considered inadequate (that site's a "joke" dude!), etc. Where there's a will to exclude information form WP, there's a way. As for "critical comment", I was simply stating that others are critical of his stance, which is completely encyclopaedic, falling as it does under a section called Criticisms. Hilarious. Have fun writing your version of reality. I've stopped caring, because this has all the hallmarks of a madhouse. Skopp (Talk) 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also contrary to your biased, anti-Drudge views, the MSM doesn't consider Drudge "far too lowly to warrant critical comment." See the following link for proof. ABC has an article on MD's influence, and how he quite possibly moved the stock market during the big pullback on Tuesday. Here's the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/story?id=2915370&page=1

So, whatever you think of Drudge, he's not flying below the mainstream media's radar anymore. That portion of your argument was completely specious.K. Scott Bailey 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone who thinks Drudge was behind the stock market plunge hardly deserves comment. But well done on digging up this one story. No, he's not below the radar, but with news sites like http://digg.com around, he's become old hat. And as someone who struggled to get through senior school, his views on scientific issues are treated with the scorn they deserve by top journos. Obviously. Skopp (Talk) 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, for someone who thinks Drudge is an "old hat," you CERTAINLY spend a lot of time on wikipedia OBSESSING over the details of his life and his views. Giles22 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I've just picked a few topics almost at random to edit, and this was one. I actually find the subject to be a bore. Skopp (Talk) 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Skop, the people here didn't just make up the rules about the use of blogs as sources just to screw you on this article. It is, and has been policy at WP for some time. If you ever bothered to read WP:RS and WP:BLP, you would realize that. Personally, I have never been a registered Republican. I was a registered Democrat for about ten years, and then a registered Green for about ten years. I voted for Jimmy Carter over Reagan, and for Clinton both times. I also voted for Bush 43 both times, but not for his father. I now live in a state that does not have party declaration, so I do not belong to any party. (Though, as my user page states, I do edit Misplaced Pages on behalf of a secret agency, and the pay is pretty good.) But seriously, I am a reasonable guy, and can often be convinced to change my opinion about a particular edit. You should be able to see that, since I came around to accepting your edit recently, once you finally brought it into compliance with the standards of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. (Sadly, I do not own this article, and another editor has seen fit to remove it. That's unfortunate, but that's how it works at Misplaced Pages.) However, my open mind begins to close rapidly when the person trying to convince me constantly calls me "Crackpot", and is uncivil and accusatory to me and other editors. No one is completely without bias, you included. But most of us are smart enough and reasonable enough to understand that not everyone is going to agree with us. That is why there are guidelines for us to fall back on. I work pretty well with a couple of editors that I am completely the political opposite of, User:BenBurch and User:Gamaliel for a couple of examples. We have had drawn out fights in the past, but we have come to have respect, and even a bit of fondness, for each other, even though we disagree on a great deal. We are not your enemy here, and you are not a victim. We all should be focusing on the content itself, its merits, and relevance, and compliance with policy, and not on personality issues. Is it possible for you to do this? Your user page contains some problematic wording. I don't have a problem with you tracking edits of yours that have been reverted. But I do have a problem with how you characterize the editors who reverted them. Even though you do not name anyone specifically, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that it is a personal attack against me and others on this article. Under policy, I would be within my rights to go and edit that out of your user page. I'm not going to do that, because I have faith that you will see the light, and remove the offending comments yourself. - Crockspot 21:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you edit my user page when I'm not even referring to you in this instance? Looks like you're still sporting that full bladder, compadre. Skopp (Talk) 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not the reply I was hoping for. An attack aganst any editor is against the rules. It's only your opinion that those unnamed editors were politically motivated. Your user page is not owned by you. Your speculative opinion which besmirches other editors has no place there. Please change it. Crockspot 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Skopp, we don't have WP:BLP as an official policy just for shits and giggles, and I think it would do you a world of good to review that policy as well as WP:ATT in regards to what constitutes reliable sources, blogs, even if there are hundreds of them, just do not satisfy these criterion. BLP helps to prevent Misplaced Pages from being subject to lawsuits in regards to libelous statements made, and Jimmy Wales has said in the past that "no" information is better than "speculative" information. I hope you enjoy editing Misplaced Pages, but in order to be a good contributor, you need to keep these policies in mind.--RWR8189 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I am well aware of that policy, dictated by lawyers, and I did not cite a blog in my edit. Skopp (Talk) 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• So, after RWR8189 asked for my user page to be protected from me(!) on the basis of WP:BLP, he was denied by an administrator. It appears there are some sane people left at WP. Hooray for that. Question to the other editors here: with that decision in hand, would any of you mind if I re-inserted the edit? (See it on my user page please, click my name). Skopp (Talk) 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've been attacked by Skopp (and responded to his baseless attack here), I would like to return this discussion to the basic issues:

1) Is the paragraph based on a proper source? The minimal bar for a source to be reliable is: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

• I would argue that "Sean Prophet" and the "American Chronicle" are not reliable sources. It is the policy of Misplaced Pages that, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." In this case, Skopp must support his paragraph with a citation and the source must be reliable.

2) Since Drudge is a living person, the policy goes further: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons in any article, talk, user page, or project page."

• This material is obviously contentious to a number of editors, so it should be cut, without first getting consensus, anywhere it appears, including the talk page, article, and Skopp's user page. An admin has found otherwise, but that does not mean it is the final word, just a finding in that situation without a full discussion.

3) Finally, are we giving undue weight to the opinions of a few people? The policy states, in closing, "If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Misplaced Pages is not the place to premiere such a proof."

• I tried to find a citation in Lexis-Nexis, in order to improve the article. I found nothing searching major papers (52 of the largest English-language papers in the world) and magazines (509 English-language, including trade publications). If Drudge is not being criticized for his position on global warming there, I would question if we are giving too much weight to a small minority.

I welcome thoughts. Rkevins 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• My thought is that your comments are superseded by the current very neutral edit, from which Sean Prophet has been removed. Skopp (Talk) 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After absorbing some more comments of other editors, here's my take on it: Is there anyone notable who has even commented on Drudge's "global warming stance", let alone criticized it? I mean outside of bloggers? Is there an editorial in a newspaper taking him to task? A TV talking head? Anyone? Beuller? If not, what makes this notable enough to mention in an encyclopedia? It could be argued (and pretty successfully) that this inclusion is original research, particularly since the source for the comments is a primary source, not a secondary. If there was a NYTimes editorial pointing out Drudge's stance, and characterizing it as outside the general consensus, then it would be a different story. But I think presenting a primary source, and justaposing it with a UN report veers into original research pretty clearly (at least to me). The purpose of WP is to report what other reliable sources have already reported, not to synthesize or create concepts, or report less-than-reliable commentary or concepts. - Crockspot 18:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And here's my take: global warming is a very notable topic, and MD is a very notable person. The current insert simply reports what he said on this notable topic, and identifies further the fact that it contrasts with what the IPCC says. It takes no position in either case. There's no "original research" there. It simply reports what he said, and how it compares to what the IPCC said. How is that "original research"? The insert I crafted takes no position on whether Drudge is right or wrong, but rather simply reports what the IPCC's position is on the same issue. Why are you so dead set against having MD's position on GW (a notable topic if ever there was one) put into this article? I don't understand what the problem with it is, I guess.K. Scott Bailey 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If I was "dead set against" it, I would have already removed it. The topic of GW is a notable topic, I'm just not sure that how Drudge feels about that topic is notable enough for a mention, considering that no notable reliable sources have commented about his stance on the topic. (Why is it important how he feels about GW?) Basing a contribution on a primary source, and comparing it to a UN report just feels like OR to me. The subject of this article is Matt Drudge, not global warming. Some people may think it is important how Drudge feels about the subject, but without any secondary sources documenting any of those opinions, we must assume that those who feel that way are in a minority, and "undue weight" is being given to its importance. I do think the NPOV issues have been resolved. There's still room for discussion on the relevance/importance/undue weight/OR aspects though. - Crockspot 18:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To crockspot: when WP:BLP fails, move on to WP:OR. I get it.

"If there was a NYTimes editorial pointing out Drudge's stance" - are you kidding? I think you vastly overestimate Drudge's profile in the media nowadays. Drudge is no longer the subject of editorials in any major newspaper. He had his 15 minutes of fame a few years ago, when he was the phenom of the day. The world has moved on. The chances of getting a major source for criticism of Drudge on this issue are going to become increasingly small. And the current edit does not even mention his critics, simply noting that he is taking a maverick stance on the issue of climate change and global warming by calling it "false science". That is simply NOT a mainstream position, and is thus very notable, especially since he features something to do with GW almost every day, and in most of his radio broadcasts. And he's been doing it for years. Even though MD is ignored by serious journalists these days, the people who do comment on Drudge are very alert to this:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/17/drudge-global-warming/

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3618

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Matt_Drudge_s_Efforts_To_Cast_Doubt_On_Global_Warming_Reaches_New_Low_2

-

and thousands more where those came from .... Skopp (Talk) 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first line appears to be a lack of assumption of good faith on my part. You should strike that comment. I have made this exact same argument many times, on other subjects and topics. It really doesn't matter who the subject, and what the topic is. The argument is the same. We report reliable source reports, we don't manufacture our own when we can't find those reports. And I believe your take on Drudge's popularity/importance may be a little bit wishful thinking. An ABC reporter wrote yesterday (in an article about Drudge's current influence on society) that the DR is his home page, and has been for five years. Hillary Clinton's press secretary also uses the DR as her home page. He's also been named "most influential", etc. in the past year. And when he does screw up, there are reliable editorials that hammer him for it. (See the Kerry "affair" dustup from the 2004 election.) There is also a lot of opinion out in the blogosphere that is not considered notable or reliable by WP standards. Trust me, this rule has hamstrung me in the past just as much as it is hamstringing you now. I have just learned to live with it. There is plenty of blog material I would love to be able to use as a source. I just can't. That's wiki life. Anyway, as I said, there is room for discussion, and I am not going to remove the passage without consensus. (Too many edit conflicts trying to comment here, I'm out for a while.) - Crockspot 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Two things: first, Drudge's profile is still quite high, Skopp. See Halperin and others regarding how influential his page is. Second, this has nothing to do with whether his position on GW belongs in this article. He's a political commentator, and GW is one of the biggest issues of the day. To not include his position (from recordings of his show that are widely available) would be rather ludicrous. Including the IPCC link is simply showing that this IS a rather controversial position to take, since the section it's found is is about "Persona and criticism."K. Scott Bailey 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
          • You make a good point, which Skopp's contention that he is not influential actually weakens. (If he's not influential, then who cares what he thinks about GW). I would object to charactarizing it as a "controversial position", since the concept of "controversy" generally needs to be sourced as a "controversy" in most cases on WP, as it veers into POV. But that isn't in the article, so it's moot. At this point, I don't feel comfortable with it, but I'm inclined to leave it in its current wording. Crockspot 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• I believe that the paragraph on Drudge's views of global warming should definitely be retained. Some people may wonder, "why is Drudge posting all these links to stories that are critical of the idea of global warming (due to human activity)?" I know I have. For anyone who checks the site regularly, it's hard not to notice how aggressive he's been in covering the story this way. People should be able to come here to find out what Drudge himself has said are his views on the topic. Kyle Cronan 04:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Achive request

Can somebody with some time on their hands please archive this talk page. I'm getting carpal tunnel paging up and down. Skopp (Talk) 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let's let the discussion settle a little first, especially on the preceeding section, which takes up a third of the page. Crockspot 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who knows how to archive knows that active sections can be retained. Skopp (Talk) 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This page/topic has become frustratingly long to navigate through. Giles22 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Heading off an edit war with Skopp

WP:Attribution#No original research states that material is original research if (among other things) it is material that:

• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

What that means is, to say that Drudge's opinion goes against the views of the IPCC, you need a reliable source making that observation. WP:BLP states that adding original research to a blp article is a violation. So until a proper source appears, that statement should stay out. - Crockspot 04:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that nobody of any note these days bothers to comment on what MD does or doesn't say or do or think. It's all in the uncitable blogosphere now. I suppose that's the advantage to Drudge of his growing obscurity. Ok, leave it as it stands, although it just hangs there in space now. Why is his sceptical view of GW part of his Persona and Criticism? Can't you improve it, Crock, to show that it's a controversial opinion he's advancing? Skopp (Talk) 07:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. The rule has been recently clarified a little. Whether or not his GW opinion is notable enough to mention is another question, but I thought that was hashed out above. I'm neutral about that, but I'll take a look at it later, see if it can be better presented. - Crockspot 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Soledad O'Brien 'controversy'

The Soledad O'Brien thing at the end of the Drudge article seems to have the following problems: Unsourced or Original research not allowed. Not to mention, in any case, it seems ridiculously petty (I think Drudge critics can do better than that; if not, they should hang it up. In comparison, the NY Times entry http://en.wikipedia.org/New_york_times does not include a laundry list of their controversies going down to the level of this Soledad one, or it would requires an entire new (looooooong) entry, just to cover the last 10 years).

I am tempted to delete the entire bit, but perhaps someone could fill me in on why my above assertions are incorrect? Thank you,

76.172.186.55 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)LAEsquire

Somebody pay attn to proper punctuation, please. Dogru144 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

The NYPress article

Let's cut through it, shall we? There's been a long campaign to keep anything critical of Drudge off the page, and the NYPress article is not principally about Drudge's sexuality, it's about Drudge's attacks on Brock. And articles critical of Drudge haven't been kept off the page by "consensus," they've been kept off by policy shopping, ("It violates WP:RS! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates WP:BLP! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates "undue weight"! Oh, wait... ad infinitum). Well, we now have a reliable source, from a noted author, which does not violate BLP. An editor has tried to claim NYPress is "obscure." Wrong. He's made the claim that Signorile or Brock are irrelevant because he hasn't heard of them. Also wrong. If an editor is worried about "undue weight," he can insert another complimentary article under "Praise." But the constant policy shopping is tiresome. --Eleemosynary 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

What, so every single editorial about a famous figure belongs on their wikipedia page? I think not. Giles22 19:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

It's one editorial, germane because it references Drudge's treatment of Brock. --Eleemosynary 19:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But I'm not going to revert the inclusion of the article again, I'll leave that to other editors here in they see fit to engage in yet another edit war over this subject. I don't really have the time or the interest to go down that road again. Giles22 19:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But since the link to the Signorile article existed on this page for ages, more than a year at least, why is there a sudden war over its existence? Crockspot has a campaign afoot to purge this page of any taint of critical content, that's why. G*ddamned conservatives trying to sanitize the wikipedia, ruining it in the process. Now wait to see them reply on how I've breached the assume good faith nonsense. Sigh. Skopp (Talk) 00:00, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry, NO ONE questions your lack of good faith these days, so it's not even an issue any more. Happy hate campaigning! ;) Giles22 15:02, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Discussion moved from a user's talk page

I moved this here, as it is the appropriate place for this discussion - Crockspot 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The source cited is an obscure newspaper, and is derogatory, violating WP:BLP#Sources. Crockspot 00:28, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The New York Press is most certainly not obscure, and has a comparable circulation to the Washington Times. The article is critical of Drudge, but no more derogatory than a WSJ editorial criticizing the Clintons. Or any liberal, for that matter.

I'm anticipating an argument from some quarters that since NY Press is a weekly and Wash Times is a daily, that the circulation numbers aren't comparable. In that case, please note the New York Press has a much higher circulation than the Weekly Standard. --Eleemosynary 03:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Eleemosynary that the New York Press is anything but "an obscure newspaper" and that article in question is no more "derogatory" than sources used in other biographies. The source meets all the requirements of WP:V and WP:BLP and therefore is fair game.

As for sourcewatch--last I knew there was no consensus about whether sourcewatch was not acceptable. I have looked for discussion on this and haven't found it--can you point me in the right direction? It seems to me that quoting an opinion from from Sourcewatch, with proper attribution in the article (i.e. "Sourecewatch argues...") ought to be acceptable, especially outside the context of WP:BLP. On the other hand, using sourcewatch as a source for facts and only attributing it them in references, is a different beast entirely. Anyways, I'm not interested in reopening any settled debates: if Sourcewatch specifically has been ruled out by consensus then I can live that, but if you're are simply applying a broader decision or policy, then I think there is some room for debate. (I'm not sure that I have the energy for it.)

Anyways' you seem to be wrong about the New York Press at least. Yilloslime 16:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm short of time at the moment, and a lot of the policy and guideline pages have had their content shuffled around, but here is a recent template deletion discussion that illustrates some of the problems with SourceWatch as a reliable source. Beyond issues of bias, the main reason that open wikis are not allowed as reliable sources is that one can never guarantee what is going to appear on the screen at any given random time, when the source page is loaded. It could be good info, or it could be "POOP". That is the main reason that Misplaced Pages is not allowed to source itself, and the principle holds for all wikis. As to the Drudge issue, I think that the arguments presented on Talk:George Soros in opposition to including well-sourced criticism from Bill O'Reilly apply here, and Eleemosynary was a strong opponent of including that information in the Soros article. The O'Reilly criticism is nowhere near as harsh and derogatory as the piece I removed from Drudge. O'Reilly is certainly more notable (as is his opinion) than the NYPress author. I really would like to see a consistent treatment of sources in all articles, and I try to apply that wherever I edit, but I already have about a thousand articles on my watchlist, so I can't fix everything. (PS. I am not opposed to all criticism in Matt Drudge, I am only opposed to this particular criticism. I also think there is an undue weight problem, since there is only one link under "Praise", and two under "Criticism", one that calls him a "nasty little faggot". Sourced notable criticism is fine, but this one is only there to bash Drudge, and to insert the "gay allegation" that has so far been kept out of the article by consensus.) - Crockspot 17:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's cut through it, shall we? There's been a long campaign to keep anything critical of Drudge off the page, and the NYPress article is not principally about Drudge's sexuality, it's about Drudge's attacks on Brock. And articles critical of Drudge haven't been kept off the page by "consensus," they've been kept off by policy shopping, ("It violates WP:RS! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates WP:BLP! Oh wait... it doesn't? Well then... it violates "undue weight"! Oh, wait... ad infinitum). Well, we now have a reliable source, from a noted author, which does not violate BLP. An editor has tried to claim NYPress is "obscure." Wrong. He's made the claim that Signorile or Brock are irrelevant because he hasn't heard of them. Also wrong. If an editor is worried about "undue weight," he can insert another complimentary article under "Praise." But the constant policy shopping is tiresome. --Eleemosynary 19:02, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict, responding to original wording above) It's a nice dodge to attack another editor with a charge of "policy shopping", but it doesn't explain your about turn on the principle of the argument. Why are you fighting for the inclusion of an attack article that labels the subject a "nasty faggot", while you vehemently oppose any criticism in Soros? You haven't explained that bit of apparent hypocrisy. And fyi, you should have learned by now that if you are going to make a broad-brush accusation regarding me, you had better have some diffs backing up your assertion. Policy shopping is not even a guideline, it is an essay written by one user who made up the concept, and it is a very flawed concept which discounts the very foundation of western discourse, namely the Socratic method. I have already told that user that his essay will lead to user's citing it when they cannot beat someone on the merits of the arguments, and here we are. There has been long-standing consensus developed on Talk:Matt Drudge (see archived talk pages) that the gay allegations are not verifiable enough, nor notable enough, to be in the article. But here it is being slipped in under the guise of "legitimate criticism". You appear to have flip-flopped. I challenge you to find the same inconsistency in my arguments anywhere I have edited this year. I also challenge you to find anything that can be characterized as "policy shopping" as well. Until you do, any further use of that term by you relating to me will be regarded as a personal attack, and handled appropriately. - Crockspot 19:43, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

But here it is being slipped in under the guise of "legitimate criticism". - What? The link has been here for years! Stop re-writing this page's history to suit your agenda. Skopp (Talk) 00:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling you out for "policy shopping" is hardly a dodge; it's an accurate description of what you've been doing lately on the Drudge page. When arguments are made showing the NYPress column doesn't violate BLP, you claim the NYPress is "obscure." When the "obscure" canard is shot down, you jump back to BLP. After which, you jump back to the "obscure" charge, claiming that because NYPress is free of charge, it's necessarily obscure. That's policy shopping, with the finesse of a spastic plate-spinner.

Incidentally, I notice that shortly after I called you out for resorting to Policy shopping, you tagged the essay for a deletion vote. I'm sure that's just a coincidence. ; )

And please, spare us the pedantry. (eg. "You should have learned by now"). If you'd like to file a harassment claim--as it seems you've been champing at the bit to do--go right ahead. Once the admins weigh in, I'll provide several diffs. For those who'd like to see evidence of your Policy shopping, they need only check the history pages on Drudge for the past week or so. (see above paragraph)

You've dismissed Policy shopping, hyperbolically, as discounting "the very foundation of western discourse, namely the Socratic method." Nonsense. What Policy shopping describes is a method some editors have of gaming the system when they cannot win an argument on the merits. It's not exactly surprising that you've dismissed this essay so quickly. Should it reach policy status, I wonder if you'll be so dismissive. In any case, it's a very informative essay.

Your "hypocrisy/flip-flop" attack on me does not hold water. I never argued there shouldn't be "any criticism" of Soros on his page; I agreed with the majority of the editors that O'Reilly should not be spotlighted with a mention of his own in the article. Check the Soros page, you'll see several links to harsh attacks on him, including one from Focus on the Family, of all places. In the future, try to have your facts straight before accusing others of hypocrisy.

You're also wrong about there being any "long-standing consensus" that Drudge's homosexuality should be censored from his article. I read the archived page you mentioned, as did another editor, who has commented below. 1) The page hardly indicated consensus; 2) You seem to be under the impression that the archived Talk page is an insurance policy against any reliable sources published in the future. It's not.

As for your "challenges"... 1) you haven't shown any inconsistency in my edits, and I have no interest in documenting yours. 2) See my above comments re: policy shopping. They're not meant as a personal attack; but go ahead and handle them "appropriately," however that may be. --Eleemosynary 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) You do realize that the obscurity clause is part of WP:BLP, no? How is that jumping from policy to policy? This obfuscation that is flowing from you is exactly why that essay shouldn't be in WP namespace. Your citing of it reminded me that I had meant to Mfd it months ago, and is a perfect example of how it can be misused. Look at the page space you wasted with it. - Crockspot 00:45, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize that I was stepping into hornet's net when I made that edit on the Matt Drudge page. If you two have a history of warring, that's unfortunate, and I would prefer to not be involved. My only point is that justification for removal of the link was spurious. The link clearly meets WP:RS, WP:BLP, WP:V. I would also point out that nothing in WP:WIEGHT says that there needs to be equal numbers of links or equal amounts of words given to the positive and negative aspects of a subject. Yilloslime 20:05, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I hear you, this discussion should be taking place elsewhere. I will copy most of this thread to Talk:Matt Drudge. - Crockspot 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• The New York Press is a FREE weekly, with a circulation of barely over 100k. It can be argued to be "obscure". - Crockspot 20:20, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

"The New York Press is a FREE weekly, with a circulation of barely over 100k. It can be argued to be "obscure"--this is your weakest argument yet. You keep removing the link, claiming that it violates WP:BLP, but I've read WP:BLP, and I don't see anything in there to support your view. I've also skimmed the archive, looking for ANY discussion of this link, and I've found none. Please provide an explaination that's more specific than " violates BLP, as well as consensus on Talk:Matt Drudge/Archive 2 not to insert gay allegations." Yes, the link does mention the gay allegations, but it's in the broader context of criticism of his journalism. I do not think that a consensus about not mentioning these allegations in the body of the article can be construed to also exclude links to sources that happen mention the allegation in the broader context of Drudge's work. Yilloslime 21:30, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the discussion of whether NY Press is "obscure" or not is moot -- in my opinion, the article is too much of an attack article to meet WP:BLP standards. I quote from WP:BLP:

Material from self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs should never be used as a source about a living person, including as an external link, unless written or published by the subject of the article. (emph. added)

Okay, now I realize that NY Press is not self-published, but the article in question is an op-ed piece so it is damn close, i.e. there is very little editorial oversight. So while the policy I quoted does not specifically prohibit the article in question, I think that including an op-ed piece that starts out by calling the subject a "nasty faggot" definitely goes against the spirit of the policy.

Also, although it can rightly be argued that the reference to Drudge's alleged homosexuality is tangential to the article, even a tangential reference potentially runs afoul of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy, as well as "Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets." (also from WP:BLP). While Misplaced Pages is not directly repeating the gossip, it would have an external link to an article that repeats the gossip in the first paragraph. Not good.

While you are right that I can't point to a specific unambiguous policy violation, it dances on the borderline of WP:BLP in many different ways. Also remember that WP:BLP again and again urges editors to err on the side of caution. Taking everything together, I think that's enough to say it is inappropriate even for an external link. (P.S. I don't particularly like Drudge either) --Jaysweet 21:53, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

This, on the other hand, is the best argument I've seen so far, and I drop my objection to removing the source. Yilloslime 23:16, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not agree with your view, Jaysweet. The tangential reference to MD's homosexuality is not "gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets" but information contained in an autobiography by a well known person (Brock), and it is moreover public information that has not been challenged by MD himself. Skopp (Talk) 00:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

True enough. Brock has written Drudge sent him emails in which Drudge said he would be "lucky" to be "fuck buddies" with Brock. That's not gossip. The NYPress article simply reiterates the info from the Brock book. What should be the reference in the article... the Brock book or the Signorile column? I'd be happy with either of them. --Eleemosynary 00:22, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

The Signorile piece is certainly more accessible and more directly relevant to the subject, whereas the Brock book only deals with Drudge as one of many topics. I'd like to see the Brock book and its MD references discussed on the page as well. If MD is unhappy with what Brock said about him, he should have challenged it in court. The fact that he has let it stand unchallenged gives consent to its contents, so I cannot see why the content of that book is not covered here, at least under the "Criticism" section. Skopp (Talk) 00:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Or at least a "personal life" section. Brock, after all, is a pretty significant figure, as the founder of Media Matters for America. --Eleemosynary 00:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, not sure if Brock actually said he had sex with MD or rather that MD dated him and sent him sexually suggestive emails. Although, of course, in the gay world a "date" usually implies a sexual relationship. Skopp (Talk) 00:57, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

<--My 2¢: Drudge is a pretty controversial figure, rightly or wrongly, and this wikipedia entry on him should reflect this. Given all the controversy that surrounds him, the article does seem to be a little skimpy on criticism, but I have definitely NOT followed Drudge himself, his website, or this wikipedia entry very much. To me, the allegation that he is gay does seem fair game for inclusion--the allegation has been made in notable, reliable secondary sources, and Drudge hasn't unambigous denied these claims either. To clarify: the article should not say that is gay, but saying that he is alledged to be gay seems fair. Having said that, if there recently really was a true consensus to exclude this info, then I think we should respect that. I haven't reread the archived thread and I'm not going to (only so much time...) but it sounds like there was never really any consensus.

My 3rd¢: Let's all keep in mind WP:NPOV. Deleting material because it is uncited or cites sources that fail to meet (or can be argued fail to meet) standards of WP:RS or WP:BLP is fine and dandy. (Though I'd argue that in some/most cases the best first step would be to tag it with {{cn}}, look for better ref yourself, and/or initiate discussion on the talk page). However, I'd argue that selectively applying this policy by only removing poorly sourced criticism from one side of an argument violates the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:NPOV. I'd also argue that this applies to articles (like this one), and to editing patterns in general (e.g., if I went around removing all the poorly sourced criticism on pages about Democrats but left all the poorly sourced criticism on pages about Republicans.)Yilloslime 01:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

"the article should not say that is gay, but saying that he is alleged to be gay seems fair" — I'd agree with that, Yillo. I do not think there was consent to exclude these details, and in fact, if you scan the edit history of the article you'll see that the most common edit inserted by members of the public who have not registered as WP editors pertains to this fact. Crockspot spends a lot of his valuable time reverting these edits. People clearly know that the subject is alleged to be gay by reliable sources and want to see it reflected in this encyclopedia. Skopp (Talk) 01:53, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, this has ALL been discussed before. Seeing as nothing new has even been alleged since the last time we had this debate, I suggest that you go back and reread the previous discussion. Every single detail of this argument has been fleshed out before. Giles22 15:06, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that discussion involved only me, you, Crockspot and another conservative editor, hardly a balanced discussion with most intent on expunging any details that do not conform to a certain viewpoint. If the reasons for the exclusion of this allegation are so obvious, please summarise for us why it should be excluded again, given its existence in a heavily sold autobiography (hundreds of reviews at amazon.com) in the public domain. Skopp (Talk) 00:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you accusing me of biased editing? Project much? I agree wholeheartedly with Jaysweet's assessment, and I thank him for stating it better than I. I'm going to be offline on and off for the next few days, so I may not keep up with the discussion, but I think my viewpoint is understood. - Crockspot 00:37, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

You agree with Jaysweet's assessment, yet that assessment cited "Editors should avoid repeating gossip published by tabloids and scandal sheets" in reference to the gayness allegation, which was proved wrong (the allegation comes not from a scandal sheet but a best-seller autobiography). The Brock book is not any of: "self-published books, zines, websites, and blogs" either. Nor does the reporting of Brock's allegation by Misplaced Pages (or Signorile for that matter) run afoul of WP:BLP#Presumption in favor of privacy since this privacy is removed once the fact (or allegation) is in the public sphere via a credible, published, widely distributed source. Your stance is simply not well thought out or logical. Skopp (Talk) 03:29, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Three points I want to make here:

1. While I think we need to be very careful about the homosexuality allegations as per Misplaced Pages policy, my argument against inclusion of the source does not hinge solely on that. I agree that the "nasty faggot" reference does not run directly counter to Misplaced Pages policy, but it is one of a great many things about the article that makes me nervous.
2. I am not sure what Yilloslime is referring to when he/she uses the phrase, "selectively applying this policy by only removing poorly sourced criticism from one side of an argument." Without the NYPress article, there is one external link under praise, and one external link under criticism. I see no concerted effort here to conceal criticism of Drudge, at least not in the External Links section.
3. That said, I do not specifically oppose the fleshing out of the external links section (I don't feel it is necessary, but I don't oppose it either). I just feel that the NYPress link is extremely iffy due to WP:BLP concerns. I am not worried about it from a POV perspective, just a BLP perspective.

If the NYPress article was the only on-line article that criticized Matt Drudge (HAH!) then I think there'd be something to debate here. But surely there must be hundreds of similarly damning articles to choose from, a large percentage of which do not use the offensive phrase "nasty faggot" in the first two paragraphs. One again, I admit the article doesn't specifically run afoul of any particular policy, but it is damn close on numerous counts. If we feel we must add another critical article, much better to find one that doesn't resort to schoolyard name-calling. --Jaysweet 15:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• There are currently three editors leaning toward inclusion, and three leaning against. There is no consensus to include, so the default is to remove, which I have done pending results of the RfC I have called below. - Crockspot 16:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

RfC on NYPress source as EL

• Is this source an appropriate external link in Matt Drudge, a biography of a living person, or does it violate the spirit, if not the letter, of WP:BLP? See immediate section above for previous localized discussion. - Crockspot 16:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Another comment in additions to my reservations above: The article seems to be less about Drudge himself, and more about Washington Post gossip columnist Lloyd Grove's and media critic Howard Kurtz's unwillingness to publish allegations of homosexuality among conservatives, in contrast to their willingness to disclose a nervous breakdown suffered by author David Brock. I am just baffled by Eleemosynary's insistence that this article, of all the anti-Drudge material out there, is the one that should represent critics of Drudge in the External Links section. It just seems like a poor choice to me. --Jaysweet 16:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• Signorile's referral of Drudge as a "nasty faggot" in the opening line in his article, certainly violates WP:BLP content, regardless of how notable Signorile is. It potential libel. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Libel? It was published years ago and no libel ensued. Moreover, the link to that article has existed on the Drudge page of WP for years without comment, until now. Crockspot has decided to include the link in his/her sanitization drive. Now suddenly it's untouchable? I don't think so. The "nasty faggot" jibe is quite in keeping with the sort of dirt, scandal and innuendo Drudge himself dishes out all the time; thus it is in perfect juxtaposition. Skopp (Talk) 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The final sentence of this comment is a classic logical fallacy. Damn right Drudge is a sloppy journalist who uses scandal and innuendo to drive his political agenda. But that doesn't mean Misplaced Pages should do the same thing. --Jaysweet 21:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The goal should be an encyclopedic biography, not a "perfect juxtaposition" which contravense the very essence of NPOV and the goals of Misplaced Pages. --Tbeatty 05:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly the meaning of a critical link is lost on you. I find the Signorile article excellent in that it highlights issues the WP article apparently finds too sensitive to handle, such as Drudge's homosexuality (alleged). It is also tellingly and trenchantly disparaging, showing the hypocrisy of an (alleged) homosexual who sides with people who, in general, abhor homosexuals. Skopp (Talk) 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality is not an "issue." --Tbeatty 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Homosexuality is most certainly an issue when the subject (Drudge) has used it as a cudgel to attack public figures like Kerry (remember how he insinuated that Kerry and Edwards had a gay relationship in order to damage them?) Drudge has made homosexuality an issue, so the Signorile article, by pointing up the breathtaking hypocrisy of Drudge's position, is a wonderfully critical resource from another public figure (Signorile himself). Skopp (Talk) 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, I don't recall it at all. It's too absurd to take seriously. Contrast that with the all too serious slur used to disparage him. --Tbeatty 03:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memory then: Skopp (Talk) 05:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Where did he say they had a gay relationship? --Tbeatty 23:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

What Drudge does and does not do is certainly debateably, but policy is not. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think I agree with Jaysweet and Eleemosynary. The link doesn't technically violate WP:BLP or any other policy as many editors have asserted, and the more I learn about the situation, the less I think it runs afoul of the spirit of BLP. Allegations of Drudge's homosexuality are nothing new, Drudge hasn't denied them, and they are notable, and therefore they should be inculded in the article. Having said that, I totally agree that with "all the anti-Drudge material out there" there are a lot better links to chose from for inclusion. It seems like everyone would be satisfied if we simply found a different link which focused more on criticism of Drudge and less on his homosexuality. Yilloslime 16:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  Better links? Ok, submit one here. Signorile is a noted writer. Find a better piece that is openly critical. Skopp (Talk) 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  Okay, took me three minutes to find this, which doesn't refer to anybody as a "nasty faggot." There was an even better-looking Salon.com article, but it was unfortunately premium content.

  I am not going to spend more than those three minutes, because I think the external links section is already fine. There is one positive article, and one critical article. That's more than enough, because Misplaced Pages is not a repository of links to op-ed pieces about Matt Drudge. --Jaysweet 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that article much weaker than the Signorile article, since it relates to the Kerry-Edwards debacle, once topical but not now. It does have a few choice quotes though. Skopp (Talk) 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• Not appropriate. May even be considered a hate site. --Tbeatty 19:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What sort of links do you want under a Criticism section — a hagiography? Skopp (Talk) 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I usually prefer legitimate criticism in the "Criticism" section. Matt Drudge has plenty of legitimate critics including those that contend he is conservative as well as those that say his web page is not journalism. "nasty faggot", however, is not criticism. It's a hateful slur. I don't see how any reference to his sexual preference is "criticism" nor can I take anything seriously that follows in a piece that leads off with that slur. It would be like saying "black" (or worse, the N word) is criticism for Martin Luther King. It's hardly hagiographic to remove hateful slurs, and the sites that promote them, from biographies. --Tbeatty 04:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh please! You obviously do not know that Signorile is gay himself, in fact he is "a gay American writer and a national talk radio host". So hateful slur it is not, but it is perhaps, from Signorile's POV, an apt description of someone traitorous, in his eyes, to the gay cause. Skopp (Talk) 14:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it matters that Signorile is gay. That does not give one a license to use hateful slurs. To wit, the recent funeral for the N word given by the NAACP. The slur he used was hateful and offensive and it doesn't matter if he's gay, straight, purple or martian. We don't need to link to hate sites. --Tbeatty 16:03, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The word "faggot" is disparaging, but not hateful. The same goes for "queer". So Signorile, a faggot, calls Drudge a faggot. Apart from the strongly disparaging flavor of this pejorative term, which is understandable in the context, I don't see the NYPress site as a "hate" site, a la a National Socialist Movement site. Skopp (Talk) 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The other thing you need to remember is that the majority of Misplaced Pages readers probably do not know Signorile is gay. I agree that in context, the phrase "nasty faggot" is less offensive coming from a known gay activist (note less offensive; it's still a little offensive). But many WP readers are not going to be getting the context. They're just going to click a link and see an attack article that starts about by referring to a living person with a homosexual slur. Now how is that acceptable for an encyclopedia article again? --Jaysweet 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The term is contained in the linked article, not on wikipedia itself. You talk as if the word faggot was in the WP page. Drudge can be justifiably criticised for his stance on homosexuality (he uses it as a weapon against political opponents while, allegedly, hiding it in his own life). Does WP shy away from sensitive issues that have long been in the open? This issue has been raised in books (Brock's book, Jeanette Walls' book etc). But even with the allegation out there and unchallenged legally, we cannot even link to an article that raises the subject? Is WP that anaemic? And if having this link is a legal risk for WP, how come that link has existed for years here without any legal consequences? Illogical, again. Skopp (Talk) 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And anyway, we can overcome the problem of readers not knowing Signorile is gay by adding some explanatory text to the link, like "Gay activist Michelangelo Signorile's critique of Drudge", or some such. Skopp (Talk) 00:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oksy, read my "timeout" comment below. If your intention is to expose Drudge as being gay, linking to an article that refers to him as a "nasty faggot" is pretty much like, the most unencyclopedic way of going about it. Really. --02:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• It reads like an OpEd piece. I wouldn't use it.HubcapD 19:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OpEd? What sort of piece do you want to serve as criticism? Skopp (Talk) 21:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Editorials and OpEd pieces are commonly linked in "criticism" sections on Misplaced Pages. --Eleemosynary 10:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• We do have a policy on this -- WP:REDFLAG -- exceptional claims, as this one, require exceptional sources. So yes, we need something more than a snarky editorial comment.  MortonDevonshire  Yo  · 00:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

We do have corroboration from a best-selling autobiography. Not enough for you? Skopp (Talk) 14:37, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Skopp, I don't want to be condescending, but did you read WP:REDFLAG? I quote: "Exceptional claims should be supported by multiple high quality reliable sources..." (emph. added) No, a best-selling autobiography of a different individual is certainly not enough. --Jaysweet 16:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

See the Jeanette Walls book, wherein she interviews people who had gay affairs with Drudge. Skopp (Talk) 00:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• This is pretty interesting, editors disagreeing whether or not to include content critical of a subject and then on the opposite sides of the fence when dealing with a different subject. My opinion is in favor of inclusion done properly than keep reverting POV loaded versions of it. I'm just more of an inclusionist I guess. I believe there should be guidelines about handling criticisms in a more consistent way so editors have something to go by. I did start an essay about it but don't believe my way should be the only way. It is still incomplete and I will work on it more once I get more time to be here. Well, good luck to all of you. MrMurph101 03:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

On the off chance that this comment is directed at me, I would suggest you check the tone of the criticism that I have supported, (see George Soros for one) compared to the tone of this particular "criticism". But you may not be referring to me, as I have also seen editors take obvious opposite stances on such things, depending on the subject. (There is even one editor here supporting this inclusion, who was fighting inclusion on Soros of much tamer material.) There are some subjects that some editors feel "deserve" poor treatment. I'm not against notable sourced criticism that is relevant to the article, and isn't over-the-top derogatory. - Crockspot 12:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC). PS. I had a look at your essay, and I think you state the problem well, but it doesn't really go beyond that. I've been advocating for consistent treatment of all of the current presidential hopefuls' articles. They tend to draw a lot of off-wiki POV that makes editors of all stripes shake their heads, and could be a good area for "bipartisan" cooperation among editors. - Crockspot 12:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I guess I could be directing this at you or user Eleemosynary who have differing viewpoints on this and the Soros article and for that matter Bill Moyers. I am not accusing anyone of being hypocrites for that matter. Arguments can be made on both sides that will gain support and policies can be interpreted where both sides could be considered correct. Inclusion of criticism of anything is a sensitive subject and causes most of the conflicts in wikipedia, imo. For what it's worth, I believe you are trying to do the right thing and have a similar goal to myself in dealing with criticism. Once I get personal things taken care of, I will work on that essay some more. If you or anyone has suggestions I'm willing to listen. MrMurph101 21:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Skopp has made extremely compelling arguments for inclusion, particularly against the thin cries of "hate site" and WP:REDFLAG, employed by two users canvassed by Crockspot (see this personal attack on Gamaliel's talk page) to come here and march in lockstep. (This is especially interesting in light of Crockspot's recent failed attempt to censor Misplaced Pages:Policy shopping from Misplaced Pages, during which he decried canvassing.)

Crockspot, et als' agenda has been clear for some time:use any bit of sophistry imaginable to keep well-sourced references, even first-hand references, to Drudge's sexuality off the page. We now have three reliable sources (Brock, Walls, Signorile). We have compelling reasons for inclusion (see Skopp's comments here). It's long past time to stop the game-playing. --Eleemosynary 01:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So Crockspot has tried a little consensus stacking herself, by running to a conservative gathering place on WP and issuing a "come help" call. Why, I wonder, am I so not surprised? Skopp (Talk) 02:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

gamaliel's talk page is a conservative gathering place? Maybe in the same sense that Live Earth and Burning Man are conservative gathering places. --Tbeatty 02:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Leaving one message on the talk page of an admin who probably would disagree with me on this issue is a little different than canvassing 19 users who you know agree with you, and Eleemosynary has gone running to that same admin for help many times. Your personal attacks are laughable. You make a nice pair. All you're lacking is the dog and pony. - Crockspot 03:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Timeout Okay, hold on just a minute here. Is the issue whether the NY Press article is appropriate for External Links criticism? Or is the issue that Eleem and Skopp feel that Drudge's alleged homosexuality should be detailed on the Misplaced Pages article? Because those are two completely different discussions in my mind. The Signorile article is not at all appropriate for the external links section, for any number of reasons I detailed earlier. Linking to an article the calls the subject a "nasty faggot" in the first paragraph is a pretty obviously bad idea, and I'm really not interested in further discussion on that point.

Now, if we are talking about whether Brock's claims of a sexual relationship with Drudge belong in the article, that is a whole entire other ball of wax. I know there were previous discussions on this but I have not yet reviewed them because I did not think that was the issue here. If that is indeed the issue, I wish you would be more straightforward about it. This may be hard to believe, but a number of the editors here, including myself, couldn't give a fuck about Matt Drudge either way (excuse the language, but I want to make sure my point is clear) and so being sneaky about your intentions does nothing but confuse the issue. If the issue is disclosing the Brock homosexuality claim, let me and other unbiased editors know and we will take a look at the prior discussions, etc. --Jaysweet 02:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Jaysweet, you're not the fucking referee/"decider" (excuse the language, but I want to make sure my point is clear). Both issues are relevant; the NYPress link should be in the external links, and Drudge's sexuality should be referenced, for "any number of reasons" detailed earlier by other users. If you're "not interested in further discussion," good for you. Others, however, are. (Skopp and I are hardly the only ones; stating otherwise is a falsehood.) And your dismissive comments about Skopp on Crockspot's Talk page hardly paint you as an "unbiased editor."

As for "sneaky intentions," see my above comments re Crockspot and "policy shoppping" in the name of censorship. --Eleemosynary 05:07, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting logic you employ as that was neither policy shopping or censorship or canvassing. But the attempts at a smear are notedand give insight as to the reason for arguing inclusion. --Tbeatty 05:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Wrong on all counts, as usual. And stop censoring other users' comments on this page. --Eleemosynary 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That was a clear BLP violation that was properly removed. If you disagree, why don't you revert, and see what happens? It's not the only clear violation of policy that is happening in this RfC, but that one would be the icing on the cupcake. You know, I called this RfC on a very narrow question. I did not badger everyone who responded, I did not attack multiple editors for their opinions... Your behavior here has been atrocious, and you can be sure that some day, diffs of this will be prominently displayed in an arbcom proceeding. - Crockspot 12:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Spare me the toothless threats, and the false high dudgeon. You tried to stack consensus, and were called on it. Now, you're responding by leaving personal attacks on several pages and mischaracterizing others' comments. If you haven't guessed by now, your threats and bullying will be ignored. But your misstatements of fact won't be. --Eleemosynary 23:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Crockspot posted a single message on an admin's talk page who, I believe, most likely would support "outing" drudge based on his desire to also out Jeff Gannon. If he's stacking consensus, he's asking people to comment that would specifically oppose his viewpoint. That is certainly not any reasonable definition of improper stacking. --23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jaysweet, I personally do not care about the gay thing per se, but I do think that any allegation, if made repeatedly in published books, especially best selling books and autobiographies, ought to be at least mentioned in the article, especially if these allegations were neither denied nor attacked legally. Gayness is a very political issue in the US, and it's of great interest and concern to most politically-motivated people, and these would be heavily represented in the readership of this page. If Mr Drudge simply linked to news articles on his page and no more, an argument could perhaps be made for excluding the information from the wiki page, but since Drudge actually enters the fray and inventively uses the sexuality of others as a weapon, his own sexuality becomes extremely germane. Surely you can see that? I also think the Signorile article is pretty well written, if a bit acerbic for some tastes. Having said that, I'm prepared to trade the Signorile link for a proper inclusion of this information on the WP page. Now, how do you suggest we include the gay allegations in the article? If you like, I can come up with a suitably cited sentence or two. Skopp (Talk) 05:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

It's amazing that you think you can make a trade like that, when consensus to exclude the link anyway is so strong. - Crockspot 05:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

And yet again, we see Crockspot's misstatement of the actual consensus (which is divided), in his long-standing tactic to use any bit of sophistry imaginable to keep well-sourced references, even first-hand references, to the relevant issue of Drudge's sexuality off the page --Eleemosynary 07:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

This RfC is about the external link, and no matter how you try to twist it into an attack on me, I still count seven editors against inclusion of the link, and three editors for. Crockspot 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but we haven't engaged in consensus stacking. There's the rub. Skopp (Talk) 14:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually Crockspot posted a single message on an admin's talk page who, I believe, most likely would support "outing" drudge based on his desire to also out Jeff Gannon. If he's stacking consensus, he's asking people to comment that would specifically oppose his viewpoint. That is certainly not any reasonable definition of improper stacking. --Tbeatty 23:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

That is a blatant misrepresentation of Crockspot's message on Gamaliel's talk page, in which he was canvassing you, among others, while attacking editors on this page. Your obfuscatory statements here are a direct result of his "consensus stacking." But you already knew that. --Eleemosynary 23:57, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

So crockspot, who routinely touches base with gamaliel for NPOV because he knows gamaliel has opposite opinions, in this one instance was canvassing for other editors on Gamaliel's talk page? If he wanted to canvas me he could just email or put it on my talk page. Since he did neither, I AGF that he was asking Gamaliel's opinion. Your lack of good faith and accusations, however, are very telling about your motives. --Tbeatty 04:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's silly, Tbeatty. We all have motives of one sort or another. We just have to keep a sense of fairness and be prepared to listen to the opposing POV. Does the opposite side have a good argument? Is it sourced decently? Is it likely to get WP sued? Is the detail too heavily emphasized? If you can consider all these things dispassionately and not try to use and manipulate them to block reasonable edits, just to suit your own motives, you're a credit to WP. Skopp (Talk) 05:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• In a conciliatory spirit, I propose this sort of edit under the Criticisms section. Comments please.

Drudge has faced criticism for implying that John Kerry and John Edwards were in a gay relationship during the 2004 election campaign.(give refs to exact details) Critics, like Michelangelo Signorile, point to the allegations of gayness levelled at Drudge himself by David Brock of Media Matters in his autobiographical book Blinded by the Right,(give refs and cites) and by Jeanette Walls in her book Dish.(give refs and cites)

That's not the final form, but you get the gist. Skopp (Talk) 11:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Did he actually imply that they were gay? How are you going to source that? I thought he just put up a picture of them kissing, with no comment. That seems like a subjective interpretation that needs attribution, not something that is stated as fact in Misplaced Pages's voice. - Crockspot 12:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

See . Yes, that's the actual text Drudge used. I'll source it better if you like, like here. So it's not simply my interpretation. I'm kinda shocked you didn't know about this, Crock. Skopp (Talk) 14:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you read your own link? His exact words were "Can't keep their hands off each other." There is also a quote attributed to someone else, but the word "gay" does not appear there. By the way this edit and summary is a clear personal attack. I'm asking you nicely to stop attacking me personally. - Crockspot 14:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you need to look up the meaning of the word "imply". Skopp (Talk) 14:55, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I remember when this came out, and while I remember it as a mildly amusing fluff piece, I don't remember any widespread criticism in the media over this or anyone accusing Drudge of homophobia based on this piece or widespread allegations of him of gay baiting/bashing, other than when the bitterness when Kerry later lost the election, and many tried to blame it on everything from "evangelicals" to "Matt Drudge." In fact, on a purely editorial note, what Edwards himself did in the VP debate with Dick Cheney's daughter was much more blatant and deplorable. Is that mentioned in Edwards wikipedia entry? Furthermore, would it be appropriate to insert in Kerry's entry or Edwards that there was speculation as to their sexuality and then cite to that Drudge piece as a verifiable source? You and I both know that would not be appropriate, and neither is what you are trying to do here. Giles22 15:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he even meant to imply gay. Rather, I think he was pointing out the shallowness of handlers and how candidates will behave based on input from poll takers and public image specialists. He was pointing out that the handlers basically said "touch each other and be buddy-buddy" and they did. To the point of absurdity. But I don't think the object was to portray them or imply they are gay. --Tbeatty

Secondly, Brock, Walls and Signorile alls seem to be the same source (Brock) for their hateful tirades. --Tbeatty 23:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion on what Drudge said. However, several reliable sources disagree with you. As for your second point on Brock being the only source, you're flat wrong. --Eleemosynary 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Tbeatty, no, the intent was defintely to imply the candidates were homosexual. Giles22, I was waiting for you to turn up. The Edwards/Chaney-Daughter thing was a trivial incident, blown up by the Right for effect. If there is no note under Edwards about it, there should be, just for historical accuracy. However, I'm not sure what point you are trying to make by comparing the WP entries for US presidential aspirants to the entry for a conservative gadfly and link-collector like Drudge, but you need to think about weight and significance. As to the effect Drudge's piece has had, and to show it was both a significant occurrence and garnered enough reaction to warrant an entry under Criticisms, we have, for instance, from The Washington Post "A Touching Moment" by Howard Kurtz:

There are many, many references on the net. A small selection I like:

• "Right Hook" from salon.com
• THREE DOLLAR BILL by vue.com
• "Matt Drudge, a Gay Who Backs the Gay Bashers" by buzzflash.com
• "Pondering the Homocons" from about.com

This item, while not a notable source, may help you understand the significance of my interest in this topic: "Really Queer--Right-wing Gay-baiting Gays" Skopp (Talk) 23:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, none of your notable, reliable sources say this has anything to do with being gay. It has everyhting to do with being handled. The Washington post article nailed it. They were told to touch each other. They did it against their own inner nature and it looked fake. That was the entire gist that I got out of both the drudge article and the WaPo article. Fro msparring opponents to touchy-feely/buddy-buddy. Nothing gay. Just fake. I guess you can try to look for gay bashing in there but it's going to take a heck of a reliable source to say it since it's not mentioned in two contemporary pieces. --Tbeatty 23:59, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The above is known as "stonewalling." --Eleemosynary 00:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• You seem to be having problems grasping the basic argument here, TBeatty. The point is not that Drudge was gay bashing, but that he was using implications of homosexuality to undermine the presidential campaigns of these individuals. BTW, there are other examples of Drudge doing this, such as the time he labelled a Canadian journalist "gay" to undermine his anti-war reporting. Need details? Skopp (Talk) 00:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Undermine their presidential campaigns?! You can't be serious. Can you look me in the eye and tell me that you think there is one person that otherwise would have voted for Kerry that did not because of some fluff piece Matt Drudge wrote about Kerry and Edwards' demonstration of public affection? Giles22 12:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• In fact, TBeatty, thanks for raising this, because it lends a lot of added weight to the inclusion I am crafting, and should be included. This link will explain what happened: White House disavows ‘smear’ of gay reporter Skopp (Talk) 00:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, the Kofman wikipedia article doesn't report that he is gay. --Tbeatty 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it has two LGBT cats applied, and mentions the Drudge/White house gay Canadian thing, however, the article does not cite a single source, not one. - Crockspot 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. I removed it pending a reliable source. --Tbeatty 04:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Anyway, thanks for all the input above from everyone. I'll take a break and come back with a (hopefully) even-handed edit when my batteries are recharged. Skopp (Talk) 06:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick question

Has Matt Drudge admitted that he is gay? I think the above discussion turns on that. That is not clear from my reading (skimming) of the above. --Samiharris 01:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• He "refuses to discuss it", see White House disavows ‘smear’ of gay reporter. That's not a "no", is it? But the discussion does not turn on his admission at all. Skopp (Talk) 02:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He is a public figure of high visibility, so I don't think the expletive "faggot" used by Signorile rules out use of that as a link. Anne Coulter used that same word to describe John Edwards, and I assume that must be somewhere in Misplaced Pages. This is more of an expletive and trash talk, and is not comparable to, say, someone accusing George Soros of funding a media website, and Soros denying that. But I am uncomfortable generally with articles making homosexual allegations that are not confirmed, not in the public record (as they are for Tom Cruise) and not admitted by the target. Surely the criticism section can be formed without repeating such accusations.--Samiharris 16:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

• Unassessed Media articles
• Unknown-importance Media articles
• WikiProject Media articles
• Unassessed biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles