Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:35, 8 March 2009

Business B‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles 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.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Template:Archive box collapsible

Sourcing

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

The problem we increasingly face in sourcing material on Drudge and his Report website is that the mainstream media have started to ignore him. His actions are now monitored mainly in the blogosphere. There's no doubt the incident you deleted did occur (and a lot more besides, if you look at all the data Media Matters has accumulated on Drudge), it's just that the serious media find it insignificant. Much of what MD gets up to goes on under the radar, so it's always a challenge to find reliable sources (reliable by[REDACTED] standards, that is). ► RATEL ◄ 05:08, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't dispute that it happened. But was it a big deal? The fact that no one covered it indicates it's insignificant. In the New York Times article is there a section on every headline that was misleading? I haven't looked, but I would expect to find a section about major issues such as accusations of bias, Jayson Blair, Judith Miller, ownership etc. But not a big section on particular stories that someone took issue with. That section amounted to someone not liking the headline they stuck on a story. It was a non-issue that no one covered. We've got that it's a conservative website in the lead sentence. I think the hyped up sections of criticism should be combined into a cogent articulation of the major issues critics have with the Drudge Report and the way the site chooses and reports stories. But a section each for these "scandals" that no on covered except on some partisan liberal website seems a bit much. No? Even the accusation of the carving of a B, while the event itself was certainly a major, how big a role did Drudge play? He reported the accusation. It just doesn't seem like that big a deal to me with respect to the Drudge Report except for hyper-partisans looking for dirt. I think sourcing the accusation that they don't vet their stories well and that they don't have high journalistic standards and mentioning examples would be more appropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:42, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I also think the inauguration/bankruptcy incident is not significant and that's why I did not oppose what you did. But the other errors/unsourced stories are properly cited and some were very influential, so unless similar poor source arguments can be made, I support seeing them stay. I don't think there's anything "hyped up" about most of it. ► RATEL ◄ 06:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

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

As opposed to Newsweak and the New York Times? ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

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

"Conservative" in first line

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

Weren't you blocked 3 times for pursuing this anti-consensus agenda here? Do we have to ask admins for further action against you? ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha, there we go, a one year block for disruptive editing, and well deserved too. ► RATEL ◄ 06:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ratel. Gods, is a little rationality and logic so much to ask for? 71.154.212.16 (talk) 09:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a source that says the site isn't conservative? I think it's a bit much to have it in the first sentence, but I think the politics of Drudge and his website are fairly well established. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:00, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ChildofMidnight, the politics of the Drudge Report are well established by others (not us, we are mere editors, and WP is a tertiary source). There are so many sources for the descriptor "conservative" that I could fill the page with citations. But no, it is not "too much" to describe the site as conservative right in the first sentence. It's done at Huffington Post, and it is acceptable there. And BTW, there is no point in addressing editor 24.187.112.15 any longer, because he is now banned for one year for repeatedly trying to erase the word conservative from the intro. ► RATEL ◄ 20:17, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase conservative does not belong in the first sentence. You are comparing it to the Huffington Post, which is a liberal blog aggregation site. A better comparison would we with another news entry, the New York Times. The word "liberal" doesn't appear til the last sentence of the intro. The NYT is as liberal as you can get, and I can provide many sources for their liberal bias. The Drudge Report is first and foremost a news site, and its conservative bias is not what defines it, unlike HuffPo. I am removing the word "conservative" unless the NYT page is also changed with "liberal" appearing in opening sentence.Zooplibob (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, well, well, the moment the anonymous editor who keeps making this anti-consensus change is given longterm bans (on more than one sockpuppet IP), a new editor joins us to make the exact same change! Is this a coincidence? Highly unlikely, even with an assumption of good faith. The only possible reason for this sort of passion over the appearance of the solidly-cited word "conservative" in the top paragraph is because it appears in the Google search for "drudge report". And who would care so much about that but someone involved in the site itself? I bring the conflict of interest rules and guidelines of Misplaced Pages to your attention. Take care. If you are connected to the site, you should state so and your opinion may then carry more weight in this issue.► RATEL ◄ 06:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you think you're quite the detective, but you've got the wrong guy. I showed up a few days ago to edit the text about the most recent siren and saw this discussion. I totally agree with the guy (although not his attitude or methods). And I think its hilarious how you think only a drudge report employee would "care so much" to change the article. I could say that about any of the changes you've made. Do you work for the Huffington Post? Please provide evidence that you do not. See how absurd that sounds? I would appreciate it if you would respond to my argument about why Conservative appears in the opening sentence of Drudge yet Liberal doesnt appear in the opening sentence of the NYT, and I will not entertain any more accusations that I work for the drudge report or connected to the previous editor. ThanksZooplibob (talk) 21:41, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Uh Ratel, WP:BITE? Soxwon (talk) 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I maintain that this is more than mere coincidence. A brand new editor pops up 24 hrs after a tendentious, block-evading editor is banned and makes exactly the same edits? And this new editor goes right ahead and makes the same exact edit, even though it is clear that this action had earned the anonymous editor a long ban? No, something smells here. Oh, and to answer your question, Zooplibob, you cannot compare a huge newspaper like the NYT to a one man website run by a recluse from a condo in Miami. The former is a broad church of many opinions, the latter is a "well-known conservative warrior" ► RATEL ◄ 23:33, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, would a newby know all of these things? Would he know that it earned another user a long ban? Also, the NYT is hardly a "broad church of many opinions" though not as partisan as Druge, it is still quite liberal in content. Soxwon (talk) 23:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

He know it by reading this talk page, which he already admits he did before editing. And as for the NYT not being a broad church, are you telling me they have no conservative commentators? I doubt that's true. Didn't Bill Kristol write for them? In any case, it's far more difficult to label a large organisation as being liberal or conservative. When it comes to one man and his website, it's logical and demonstrably true. ► RATEL ◄ 00:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

The New York Times is a more "official" liberal entity than Drudge, as it has openly endorsed Democrats for many years in elected office 1 2 3 4 5 (how far back do you want me to go?). Nowhere has Drudge ever written an editorial on his site about how he supports republicans. That makes it much easier to label a large organization liberal when they openly endorse only liberal candidates for office, and that doesnt even count the bias in the news sections of the paper, which are very liberal. Ive made a compromise change to the first sentence, describing Drudge as a conservative rather than the drudge report. I hope you will find this fair.Zooplibob (talk) 00:40, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Endorsing candidates does not make a media organisation liberal or conservative; some endorse either side on different occasions. Whereas Mr Drudge votes Republican and has given money to the Republicans, and calls himself a "conservative". He also attacks the liberal side of politics every single day, and is known by everyone in the media as a GOP apparatchik. The amount of citations I can supply to support what I have just said is enormous. Whereas you can provide how many citations to support your contention that his page is not conservative? End of story. ► RATEL ◄ 00:58, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Apparently you aren't reading anything I'm writing. Please show me where I ever denied that Drudge had a conservative slant in his article selection, because I didn't. I said its conservative slant is not what DEFINES it, as opposed to the huffington post. I agree the statement should be in the opening paragraph, but not opening sentence, which is what is done on the NYT page. And yes, endorsing only one party DOES make a publication liberal/conservative. If CNN had a story saying "We at CNN believe Obama should be president" that would most certainly make them a liberal news network. They dont do that for the very reason that they need to maintain a neutral point and not support either side they are covering. If you believe the NYT isnt liberal, please cite an election in the past 50 years where they endorsed a republican. And if you think the editors and writers at the NYT or most newspaper publications arent liberal or dont vote for democrats, see this 1. The editors in the NYT attack conservatives and Bush every single day in the editorials.

• De-indent. You seem terribly vexed by the wording of the 1st para. And it's the only edit you feel moved to make on WP. Strange. To answer your point, I would argue that conservatism is what defines the DR website. The phrase "the conservative Drudge Report" is found all over the internet and within articles written in major newspapers in the US and abroad. Comparisons between this one page, one man (essentially) website to news media organisations employing hundreds, with hundreds, if not thousands, of webpages, is facile. Please desist. I am asking you to provide any proof at all that the DR website is not defined by its conservatism. Come on, show us why the site is not essentially conservative. ► RATEL ◄ 02:09, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Lets let google be the judge. Hit results for "The conservative drudge report" is 545 hits. Hit results for "The liberal new york times" is 13,600. According to you, that means the new york times is defined by being liberal, and thus should have that distinction in its opening paragraph, wouldn't you agree? I, on the other hand, contend that they are first and foremost news aggregation entities, that get stories from the AP. But additionally, the NYT has a section in the back where it espouses its liberal beliefs (editorials). Drudge never editorializes except on rare, breaking news, and he will *NEVER* offer opinions on his website. The liberal/conservative slant of a news site is one of the properties of it, not the definition. Just as the entry for apple doesn't say that some are red or sweet in its first sentence, neither should the properties of either NYT or Drudge. These go farther down in the intro.Zooplibob (talk) 19:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

What if we just mention the fact that Drudge himself is conservative and the readers decide for themselves if it has a slant? Soxwon (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I suggested that as well by moving the words "American Conservative" in front of Matt Drudge, but it was promptly reverted by Ratel. Even the article itself says the site is "generally regarded as conservative in tone". That is a lot different than being a conservative website.Zooplibob (talk) 20:43, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I can provide numerous high quality sources for Drudge Report = conservative. Why don't you come up with some that say the opposite? Then you'll have some skin in the game. Right now, you've got nada. ► RATEL ◄ 22:38, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

I've made the change to put the reference to "conservative" at the end of the opening paragraph, in order to be consistent with other articles on Misplaced Pages. Any attempt to revert back to the previous revision will be considered vandalism and promptly removed.Zooplibob (talk) 19:14, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

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

• Warning about personal attacks! They are not allowed. Check the rules. Please stick to the topic. Personal attacks can be removed from talk pages. If you have nothing to add to the conversation, do not post messages here. ► RATEL ◄ 08:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Where is the personal attack in this paragraph? 24.187.132.126 (talk) 17:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, the accusations of hypocrisy, POV/agenda pushing, and trying to get around admin's actions (which it seems you are guily of, how ironic). You may disagree with Ratel, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't respect him. Perhaps you should see WP:CIVIL? Soxwon (talk) 19:27, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, let's see. The accusations of hypocrisy are in regard to the way he moderates this page. I don't know how that can be confused for a personal attack. POV/Agenda pushing?... is that a joke? The same exact action is being done on the other side. Is it only agenda pushing when you disagree with it? I think you need to learn the difference between personal attacks and disagreeing with a user's actions in editing a page. 24.187.132.126 (talk) 21:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

No, you are supposed to assume good faith editing, saying he is 'twisting the facts' sounds like an accusation of POV pushing and the whole comment reads of WP:OWN. However, I don't think is going to be productive so I will leave you to continue trolling. Soxwon (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Proposed RfC

• Ok, I've restored it to the long-standing format, the same as the one used in the HuffPo page. HuffPo and Drudge are often mentioned as competing websites (I can provide the sources). Unlike comparing the DR to the NYT (absurd) or any other major media outlet, the HuffPo-Drudge Report comparison is a logical comparison. Both partisan websites run on a small scale, seen by many as in direct competition. Now rather than edit warring this, I suggest we take it up the list of procedures used to resolve conflicts. You bring your sources, I'll bring mine. Agreed? ► RATEL ◄ 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparing Drudge Report to The Huffington Post is ridiculous. Huffington Post is a LIBERAL website. Drudge Report is an aggregate website, which may contain a bias (see the difference), just like every other media outlet. If we label one media outlet, we have to label them all. Mention the bias, don't label The Drudge Report a "conservative website," unless you want to be dishonest. A real enyclopedia would not do that. 24.187.132.126 (talk) 23:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That's your original research, don't you see? But it doesn't matter what you think, you have to provide sources for your position. I'm still waiting for you to provide any sources for your views. On the other hand, I have plenty for the concept of Drudge having a conservative website (as in "the conservative Drudge Report"). ► RATEL ◄ 23:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The search "liberal new york times" comes up with more than 100x more results than "conservative drudge report". Even though that is just anecdotal, you brought up that comparison first. In addition, this article shows that even news publications like the new york times can be liberal, yet you dont see fit to put that in the first sentence. This debate is about simple logic. Huffington post is a blog, where liberal opinions are expressed, and all those expressing opinions are liberal. Thus it is a liberal blog site. Drudge report is a news aggregation site, where hard news stories are linked to, and it is run by a conservative man. By your logic, it is a conservative news site. But then the NYT, CNN, or any other news aggregation site that is run or owned by a liberal is a liberal news site. This is obviously not the case. I hope you can understand the difference between slant and outright declaration of affiliation, and why one belongs in the first sentence and one does not.192.91.75.30 (talk) 15:56, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

24.187.132.126 evading blocks

Good thing that guy is banned, it's so hard to change your ip address. 24.187.132.126 (talk) 19:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

You are inviting a IP range block. ► RATEL ◄ 21:17, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

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

Template:RFCmedia

Neutral Statement

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

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

Other editors want :

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

Support for inclusion of "conservative" in line one

1. The word "liberal" is used on the Huffington Post page in line one. The HuffPo website is often compared as a direct competitor to the Drudge Report in the media (sources available).
2. The Drudge Report is characterized in numerous places on the Internet as "conservative". A small selection of verifiable sources are on the page under the section on Conservatism.
3. The editors opposing have no sources that claim the Drudge Report is liberal or non-partisan. ► RATEL ◄ 01:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Its a news aggregator. Its American. It obviously, verifiably and unashamedly promotes a conservative perspective (and its not like "conservative" is a pejorative term). Sums it up nicely. Rockpocket 02:34, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of 'conservative', contingent to sources being provided, so as to not see this repeat itself in a few months. I am fine with citation of conservative bent being int he body, so as not to crap up the lede with numerous inline cites. ThuranX (talk) 06:29, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

The way it was initially arranged was no cites in line 1 (so as not to clutter the lead), but fully cited further down the page under section on Conservatism. ► RATEL ◄ 06:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

• Since the august and respected Encyclopaedia Britannica labels The Drudge Report as a "conservative news and commentary website", there is absolutely no reason why[REDACTED] cannot follow suit. On this basis, and with Britannica as source, it shall be put back in to line 1, and taken to adjudication if further edit warred. ► RATEL ◄ 21:39, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Ratel that was an article about The Huffington Post. And even that article did not mention that HuffPo was liberal until the end of the first paragraph. And the sentence in context is "It was created to provide a liberal counterpart to the Drudge Report, a conservative news and commentary Web site." The word "conservative" is used to describe Drudge in order to compare to the liberal Huffington Post, not as a neutral definition. A movie article might read "Saving Private Ryan was filmed in Imax, as compared to the 35mm filmed Thin Red Line." You would not start the encyclopedia entry for that movie as "The Thin Red Line is 35 mm World War 2 movie about..." The film used is not something that would go in the opening line. Please consider context when citing sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zooplibob (talk • contribs) 27 February

Twaddle. You are straining at gnats. ► RATEL ◄ 22:23, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I note that the Drudge Report is called "the core of the conservative Internet rumor mill" in the book Return of the "L" Word: A Liberal Vision for the New Century by Douglas S. Massey, published by Princeton. ► RATEL ◄ 23:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

From the book Media Bias "Conservatives believe that left-wing media bias is an important reason for the creation of new information sources, such as the Fox News Channel and the Drudge Report" Well, ain't that sweet? The DR lined up with Fox News, yet we mustn't label it overtly conservative? Funny. ► RATEL ◄ 23:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Using those sources is astounding, but they are not RS for this as fact. They offer their own editorial opinion which is not worth much in this instance where we are trying to deal with fact. The actual content aggregation on Drudge is pretty much down the middle -- and it lists ALL the columnists it can. You find that to be a bias? Collect (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Published books are reliable sources, mkay? And the content is not "down the middle". That's a far-out claim! Listing columnists means absolutely nothing. And the politics of the headlines' linked sites are irrelevant: the bias is almost entirely in the selection of stories (which for anyone who's actually read the site, essentially frame issues at debate in a particular way). Just to take an example from the recent past, there were countless stories in the media noting that Sarah Palin's claims about the Bridge to Nowhere were false. But Drudge linked none of those stories. Instead he linked a piece about how the media is going to be sorry for attacking her and all the Palin articles were out of line for criticizing her. So which news organizations are at the end of his links are well nigh irrelevant. It's all in the intent. ► RATEL ◄ 00:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Opposition to inclusion of "conservative" in line one

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

• Other than the relatively infrequent reports actually written by Drudge (which may or may not have a conservative slant, most appear, in fact, to be more general tabloidy articles) the body of the DR is links to what we would consider reliable sources, and he most decidely links to many liberal sources, which the HP does not do for conservative sources. In other words, HP sticks mainly to sources which reflest its general pholosophy, whild Drudge most certainly does not. In fact, the list of columnists linked to by Drudge is fairly inclusive. The only use of "conservative" therefore should be in reference, at best, to Drudge;s personal positions, not to his site. Collect (talk) 12:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Er... the articles Drudge himself authors are almost all anti-Democrat exposés, not mere "tabloidy pieces". Example And his links to liberal sources, when they (rarely) occur, are to prove a point (usually made clear in the text containing the link). ► RATEL ◄ 13:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I noted some of the articles which he writes may be "conservative" (though he tends to write about lots of totally apolitical stuff as well). The main links on the page are basically all to RS material -- with the NYT and LAT being in the forefront. There is no apparent bias in his choice of headline links, and since they all have a "real link" to go to, there is no connection to his position in the material linked. As for the links to columnists, saying that liberals are "rare" on those links is totally unsupportable. "Woman with herpes files suit" is not very political, is it? Note that he lists "special reports" maybe once a day -- and they recently are on the stock market etc. and not on particularly conservative or liberal topics. So much for "almost all anti-Democrat" anything. Overstatements of that sort do not help. Collect (talk) 14:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Care to provide a link to some of his "apolitical" exclusives? ► RATEL ◄ 14:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Try ... is apolitical, is certainly not "conservative bias", is not written by Druddge, may be political (Pelosi had to go to Rome was excuse for no debate). In two weeks -- ONE article fits the "conservative bias" bit if you stretch the term. I think you will find it instructive to see how few articles he writes, and how often they are simple quotes form material also found in the NYT etc. I think the Lewinsky affaire gave him an image which is not properly ascribed to the aggregation website. HP, on the other hand, has a number of editorial columns and opinion blogs, and does not furnish a fairly comprehensive list of syndicated columnists. As I iterate, you might call Drudge "conservative" but to call the site "conservative" is highly POV. Collect (talk) 14:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Collect, that page has a listing of poll results (no articles written by Drudge at all, so immaterial), the next page is about what the chairman of Fox News (the king of conservative media outlets) thinks about the world, and the third is about what a huge error a Democrat president is making by sending more troops to Afghanistan. So far so typical. Same goes for the rest of what you quote — the thrust of all articles he publishes is aimed to undermine the "liberal" side of politics. It's not very subtle. Do you think people are stupid? ► RATEL ◄ 21:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Try AGF has "Special Reports: 5301

Duplicates mean the spider has found one of the pages at that snapshot has changed. This may even mean re-ftps an identical file. In a fast moving story the contents of the special reports gets changed. Other times, it's just the link text that was changed. Click on the latest link to see the most current report.

MURDOCH WARNS: NATIONS WILL BE REDEFINED, FUTURES ALTERED...

MURDOCH WARNS: NATIONS WILL BE REDEFINED, FUTURES ALTERED

Bill Ayers: Obama Making 'Colossal Mistake' sending additional troops to Afghanistan...

'UH-OH'...

'UH-OH'... Student wore T-shirt: 'Hitler gave great speeches, too'... New sod laid in front of school: 'The joke is they're going to take it away when he leaves'...

HURRY, FELLAS, LET'S VOTE, I AM OFF TO ROME!

OBAMA BURNED: GREGG WITHDRAWS AFTER POLICIES TOO MUCH TO STOMACH...

'We are functioning from a different set of views'...

OBAMA BURNED: GREGG WITHDRAWS AFTER POLICIES TOO MUCH TO STOMACH

GREGG WITHDRAWS: CENSUS MOVE, STIMULUS BLOWOUT TOO MUCH TO STOMACH

GREGG WITHDRAWS NOMINATION FOR COMMERCE SEC

Gregg withdraws nomination for Commerce Secretary

and so on ... note that these are not particularly partisan as a rule. And, they are not polls from last year either. As for making personal attacks here, please don't. Collect (talk) 23:00, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are, as a rule, partisan. ► RATEL ◄ 23:58, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Would an honest encyclopedia (Grolier, Britannica, Encarta) report that the Drudge Report is "an American conservative news aggregation website? I think all of us know the answer to that is a resounding no.(copied from above) Once again I will mention that it is honest to mention the perceived bias (as is done with other media and never in the opening sentence). However, it is dishonest to label the Drudge Report a "conservative news aggregation website." The differences between Drudge and Huffington Post are innumerable. Also 99% of links on the site are to other highly respected non-partisan news outlets (Drudge very rarely writes articles for the site). 24.187.132.126 (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You ask: Would an honest encyclopedia (Grolier, Britannica, Encarta) report that the Drudge Report is "an American conservative news aggregation website? YES!! To quote the most impeccable source, Britannica, we find on the Huffington Post page: " was created to provide a liberal counterpart to the Drudge Report, a conservative news and commentary Web site." Game, set and match! ► RATEL ◄ 21:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Please defend why Britannica did not refer to the Huffington Post as liberal until the end of the paragraph. The opening sentence reads "American news and commentary Web site, with offices in Los Angeles and New York City." My argument has been from the start that the article should not open with the word "conservative" in line one. That is the the debate. Game, set, and match!Zooplibob (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

That's not the argument. Stop changing the goalposts please. We already have HuffPo called liberal in line 1, so what's good for the goose is good for the gander. All we were looking at here is whether an "honest" encyclopedia would refer to the DR as conservative. And the answer to that is YES, it does. Got it? ► RATEL ◄ 22:31, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice try but anyone can submit edits to pages on that web-based encyclopedia, just like on here. I wouldn't put it past you to have submitted that on there (especially since there is not even a page on Britannica for the Drudge Report.) 24.187.132.126 (talk) 22:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I have never edited Britannica, and I would appreciate you desisting from personal attacks. This is the umpteenth time I have to warn you about this! ► RATEL ◄ 22:54, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Comments

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

Current sources in the media

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

1. "...the conservative online news site Drudge Report..."
2. "...the conservative-leaning Drudge Report..."
3. "...the politically conservative Drudge Report..."
4. "...the right-wing Web site The Drudge Report..."

Amazingly enough -- these are not "typical mainstream media" cites at all. And note above the cites for the "political" reports which are, frankly, few and far between there. Collect (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Of those 4 cited, 2 are from the Huffington Post which you yourself admitted was partisan (Haaretz was a republication of a Huffington Post article), the only one that might be considered credible would be The Hill, which only said conservative leaning. Soxwon (talk) 19:40, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, these are media, these links show current opinion, and they are from the last short period. If you want similar quotes from the top media sites, we have them, (see the page itself), but then you have to look at a longer period of time. Hey, provide any source you like that says the opposite! Where's the countervailing opinion to support a non-conservative case? ► RATEL ◄ 21:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Those "sources" show opinion, not fact. Everybody has an opinion (2 are from the Huffington Post) which is why opinions cannot be reported as sources. There article says nothing as to why it's conservative. If it had some facts to back it up, it could be a source, but it does not. As far as finding sources that say the Drudge Report is not conservative... this whole idea is ridiculous. You can't prove a negative. For example, you can't find a source that says "So And So never took steroids." You can't prove that he didn't do something, only that he did. If he didn't do , no one would write about it. Get it? 24.187.132.126 (talk) 21:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

In other words, 1) you have no sources for Drudge Report being merely tabloid, or even-handed, or liberal, and 2) if we find mere "opinion" restated all over the internet, in small media outlets as well as large, it becomes the sort of multiple-sourced "opinion" we can safely quote in wikipedia. That's how wiipedia works, don't you know? It's a tertiary source. ► RATEL ◄ 21:44, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem there, if you quote nothing but leftist and "activists" then of course anything near centrist is going to be "conservative." The only one respectable gave a non-commital "conservative leaning." Soxwon (talk) 23:06, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

And if you want a source saying it's centrist (more so than your precious NYT): http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664 A study conducted by UCLA. Soxwon (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. I wouldn't wipe my bum with that rubbish. It's well known to be so flawed as to be useless, many sources will confirm, here a liberal one . ► RATEL ◄ 23:30, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Finally you are clear! The Huffington Post is RS, UCLA is not. Collect (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

If you want an unaligned critique of that conservative study, try ► RATEL ◄ 23:42, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Great! A blog is your RS to show that UCLA is not RS. BTW, Geoff Nunberg is an outspoken Democrat, so I can not really say his blog article is "unaligned" as you assert. He wrote: The big-D sense of Democrat persisted, of course, but only as the name of a political affiliation that had no more independent meaning than old party names like Whig and Tory. That's what allowed the Republicans of Hoover's era to start referring to their opponents as the Democrat Party. The point of the maneuver was to suggest that there was nothing particularly democratic about a party whose support was based in urban political machines. But Republicans couldn't have gotten away with it if the earlier meaning of democrat hadn't already faded from the public mind. " make his Weltanschauung clear. Collect (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, there are many other people debunking that conservative-funded "study" written by authors who also happen to be former members of conservative think-tanks. Even[REDACTED] cites the study as flawed on the page Media bias, citing someone who looks at study methodologies, Mark Liberman, a professor of Computer Science at the University of Pennsylvania . Also take a look at the attack by Dow Jones & Co or the way it is ripped apart at eRiposte.com etc etc ... hundreds more sites ripping it apart. ► RATEL ◄ 00:51, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Aha -- attack the authors of the study when a blog is not accepted as RS about it. Your position is clear. It is, however, not correct and iterating it a dozen more times will alter nothing. Thanks! Collect (talk)

Yes, my position is clear: my Britannica source + my hundreds of newspaper sources and book sources, versus your universally panned conservative "study". That about sums it up. Thanks! ► RATEL ◄ 01:17, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Noo, you have POV sources and where is the link for EB? The one posted is for Huffington. Also, the UCLA study seems to be everywhere so you can't just say it's "panned" w/o giving a NEUTRAL claim of such. Soxwon (talk) 01:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Britannica link is above. Britannica has no page on DR (I guess it's just too darned insignificant), but the only reference it does have (on its HuffPo page) is as quoted. The fact that it's on the HuffPo page makes no difference — it's still Britannica information. The UCLA study by conservatives is too contentious to be used as a source for anything but a countervailing opinion in the section on conservatism, in my opinion, if at all. It was there a few years ago, as I remember, but was a consensus withdrawal, see archives. ► RATEL ◄ 02:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Compromise edit

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

• My compromise is to change the Intro to look like this:

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

This moves the word into sentence 2 and should satisfy the critics. ► RATEL ◄ 02:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine, get reliable sources, Huffington Post is not one. Soxwon (talk) 02:47, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Please concentrate on the debate, and make sensible comments, or go edit something else. I have never used the Huffington Post as a source. The sources are on the existing page. ► RATEL ◄ 03:01, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

About the Huffington Post, whose characterization is that, Huffington's or EBs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Soxwon (talk • contribs) 03:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

EB's. ► RATEL ◄ 03:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Web EB is not print EB, and does not have the same editorial policies. "The DR is a news aggregation website, with links to major news reports, news organizations and to a comprehensive list of syndicated columnists. The DR does not run blogs, or have any editorial conrol over what it links to other than the occasional reports written by Matt Drudge, and some of those reports are claimed to be conservative in nature." Clear. Concise. And, best of all, accurate. Collect (talk) 14:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Print EB contains the same text, I've checked. I don't like your edit. It's weasely and full of negatives (what the DR is not). Awful. ► RATEL ◄ 23:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The only "negative" is that it has NO blogs. As for stating that it does not have editorial control over anything other than MD's own reports -- can you show me another way of stating that fact? Can you find another way of phrasing that fact? As for your claim that it has right wing sites -- might you tell us how many links are on the main DR page -- how many are to "right wing sites" and how many to "left wing sites" or columnists? I think that such an exercise would be useful here. (Hint: Most of the columnists are liberals). Collect (talk) 23:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

1. You do not have a sentence saying what something "is not" in any intro of any page on Misplaced Pages.
2. I do not claim that "it has right wing sites". You are not following the discussion. Please go back and re-read the debate, specifically about where I talk about "intent" (scan the page for that word).
3. You need to study wikipedia's page on weasel wording, because you have a tendency to come up with text laden with weasel words. ► RATEL ◄ 00:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I stated that you tend to use weasel words. This is not a personal attack and has been pointed out to you by other editors, right on this talk page. If the cap fits, wear it. Secondly, sentences saying what Drudge "is not" are not appropriate in this context in the lead paragraph. Thirdly, you are meretriciously attempting to tone down the conservatism of the DR to merely "some of the reports" to which the site links! Are you serious? You seem to have no understanding of the debate here at all, and I shall cease responding to you unless you have something sensible to say. ► RATEL ◄ 01:40, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

ratel, you do have a tendency toA)be condenscending B)be unecessarily provoking and C)make outright personal attacks (hint: saying someone has no idea what is going on is a personal attack). He has a point, all you have are links to partisan websites, opinion pieces, pieces that don't even comment on it's standing (Int. Herald Tribune, NYT) and one EB (and anything's conservative compared to Huffington). Soxwon (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your ad hominem directed at me. I see that the new tack you and your allies are taking is to claim that the DR is not conservative because of the affiliation of the sites to which Drudge links. That won't wash. And you are ignoring the section on Conservatism in the main article, with the excellent sources there, which I haven't even bothered to cite in this debate, because I thought we were all on the same page about the site actually being conservative. That's not what we're debating. This debate is simply about WHERE TO PUT THE WORD "CONSERVATIVE". So, Soxon, since you too seem to have lost the thread of what's going on here, I have to make another "personal attack" and ask you please to re-read and concentrate. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 02:45, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Your condescension ("another wandering mind" as an edit summary?) is not helping anything at all. H₂O Shipper 02:49, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I said he has a point, nowhere did I point that I thought conservatism should have been removed. Perhaps you should reread what is written? Soxwon (talk) 02:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon, thanks, putting that to one side, would you please give us your version of a compromise edit below? ► RATEL ◄ 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• There is something very ironic about your telling everyone else to stay focused, while simultaneously losing the thread yourself. H₂O Shipper 03:02, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that we've all been ignoring you up until now, but please don't start adding unhelpful trolling comments to get attention. ► RATEL ◄ 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really that hard, put the conservative by Matt Drudge instead of the site. That is not debatable and still allows for the reader to decide for themselves whether or not it is conservative, opening line would be: The Drudge Report is a news aggregation website run by conservative Matt Drudge. Soxwon (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Your suggestion bears consideration. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Also for the last sentence, instead of saying "The website is considered by many to be conservative in tone," how about listing the more notable of the sources you keep claiming? Again, though I feel they don't warrant[REDACTED] labeling it that way, the reader can once again decide for themselves whether the sources justify the label. Soxwon (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes I completely agree the last sentence should go (I never put it there BTW). The sources we've used, inter alia, up until now for the conservative tag are:

1. "Will a funny thing happen on the way to Washington?". Edward Luce. The Financial Times. . Retrieved on 2008-10-29. "...the conservative Drudge Report..."
2. "McCain labels Obama 'the redistributor'". Stephen Dinan. The Washington Times. . Retrieved on 2008-10-29. "..the conservative Drudge Report..."
3. "MoveOn.org Targets AP's Fournier for Alleged Pro-McCain Bias". Editor and Publisher (pay site, article is available elsewhere online). . Retrieved on 2008-09-10. "...the Drudge Report ....and numerous other conservative sites"
4. "Drudge Retort Considers Lawsuit Against AP". MediaPost NY. . Retrieved on 2008-12-09. "...the conservative Drudge Report"
5. "A weekly look at what's getting the most looks online". The Topeka Capital-Journal. . Retrieved on 2008-12-09. "...the Drudge Report, a popular conservative Web site."
6. "Bill Clinton tells Rush Limbaugh: 'You're tan, fit, look good'". Rawstory.com. . Retrieved on 2008-12-09. "Limbaugh spoke about how the conservative Drudge Report first reported..."

Thanks for the suggestions. ► RATEL ◄ 03:54, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

So it'd look something like this:

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

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

Yeah, I mean ok, if that's what we have to do to get consensus. I'll go with that, reluctantly. I think if we do put that edit in, I'm still going to be reverting the $%$%$% page on a daily basis because people come along and reinsert "conservative website" all the time (just check the history). And it's hard to argue with them when they have excellent sources, from Britannica to The Financial Times. We'll put your edit in (unless there is cogent disagreement), but also leave this RfC up for a few months to see what comments come along..... ► RATEL ◄ 06:31, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Unsure as to in what way that is superior to (say) "The Dudge Report is a news aggregation website, with links to major news reports, news organizations and to a comprehensive list of syndicated columnists. It occasionally has reports written by Matt Drudge, and those reports are claimed to be conservative in nature. It started in 1994 as a weekly email dispatch for subscribers. It achieved fame for being the first news source to break the Monica Lewinsky scandal to the public after Newsweek decided not to publish the story." Note "many columnists" is actually a fairly comprehesive list of syndicated columnists, etc. And the 1994 date is useful. Close? Collect (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

No, that's not a good edit in my opinion, for several reasons. Firstly, the sentence containing "conservative" is weasely (I really wish you'd find out what weasel words are). Secondly, the sites conservatism is based on more than just the Drudge-written editorials; there are 3 things: Drudge's own conservative opinions and history (and his sidekick Andrew Breitbart's outspoken conservatism), Drudge's editorials, and (mostly) his choice of headlines (which are chosen to make the left look bad and the right look good, 95% of the time). Thirdly, I'm concerned that the entire thrust of moving the word "conservative" out of the first sentence has more to do with the commercial considerations of the site's ownership (because the first sentence appears in Google when you search for "drudge report") than for any wikipedia-based, or even partisan, reasons. That worries me. We can't have the encyclopaedia manipulated by businesses who don't want their potential clients/readers/click-thrus dissuaded from visiting by an upfront statement in Google of their actual political affiliations. (You listening, Matt and Andrew? Give it up, boys.) So I'm particularly worried by any editor who seems to have the main agenda of shifting the word further down the page for flimsy reasons. ► RATEL ◄ 14:01, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I know "WEASEL" and I know what it is not. Lecturing me is not going to win any points. As you appear to think a list of columnists has an intrinsic political slant when others do not agree with that push, I fear that you may be disappointed in a reasoned compromise which clearly states that some of the "reports" may be conservative, but that does not make the entire site conservative. As opposed to HP which does not link to all columnists, and has a clear preponderance of columnists paid by HP with particular political positions. As for attacks about "being worried by any editor" with the implication that they have a commercial interest in anything -- that should be redacted instantly. Thanks! Collect (talk) 14:56, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I will go along with this edit (Soxwon (talk) 04:07, 1 March 2009 (UTC)). It identifies Matt Drudge as a conservative, while citing sources later on that claim it has a conservative bias. It is not the articles job to form an opinion (yes, they are opinions) that the site is conservative. The facts are that Drudge is conservative, and less importantly that some media sources claim it is conservative. Good compromise. Zooplibob (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Soxwon won. To Collect: no redaction from me, I never named any editor, not even you, as having a commercial interest. Your phrase "those reports are claimed to be conservative" is a classic example of weasel words. And the fact that the DR has a list of columnists of all political hues at the end of his site is of negligible importance. I have never used any of those links, have you? They are there in order to get reciprocal links from other sites. Elementary, my dear Watson. ► RATEL ◄ 00:14, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I use the links, and, as I understand it, some of those sites get more than 25% of their page views from Drudge links. OTOH, I can not find a NYT link to Drudge -- so the "reciprocal" bit is quite doubtful indeed. (nor an LAT link, nor an Ebert link, nor Dowd link, nor a Helen Thomas link ... ad nauseam) And that list comprises more than one half his entire site, so I consider them to be of substantial importance. Collect (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that because he links to Ann Coulter (extreme right wing) as well as people like Roger Ebert (not a political figure), we need to consider this when asking ourselves which way his site leans? 'Fraid not. I don't see it like that, Britannica doesn't, the Financial Times doesn't, and in fact I've never seen the link list mentioned by anyone other than you. Thinking people look at the wording of Drudge's links to news stories, the breathless editorials he writes, his own well known pro-GOP views, and so on. Nice try, Collect, but no cigar. As to the lack of reciprocal links, well, you can always live in hope. Put the links up and hope for a reciprocal one, is how it works on many sites. It also allows him to claim, just as you are claiming, that he is "fair and balanced" (a la Fox News). Not that he has ever made that claim, mind you (I guess he doesn't want to be laughed at). ► RATEL ◄ 00:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratel has accused me of being Zooplibob (someone I do not know, nor have I ever communicated with). He has also accused me and others of having a "commercial interest" in the site and has told me to review "http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:OWN". I was simply trying to make WP more accurate. It seems that the overall majority agree that "conservative" does not belong in the first sentence, being that it does not define the site. Sorry Ratel, but it looks like you lost this one. 24.187.132.126 (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The compromise edit does contain the word conservative in the first sentence. I asked an admin to check Zooplibob's IP to see if you are the same person (which is not the same as "accusing" you of being the same person). So once again, your comments are riddled with inaccuracies. ► RATEL ◄ 00:57, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I am new to Misplaced Pages, and this is the only article I've ever edited. And although this might not be the appropriate place to state this, I have to say that dealing with "Ratel" has spoiled the experience for me. From the start I am accused of both having a financial stake in DR as well as being another user, neither of which have any factual basis (as your little IP check will reveal). This could have been a pleasant debate on how to describe the DR website, but spiraled down quickly with the inflammatory and often obnoxious tone by Ratel ("game, set, and match"). Ratel, you would probably do well to read , as someone posted earlier, since it describes your actions perfectly. I'm happy that my changes were considered, debated, and ultimately resulted in a compromise (by referring to Drudge as conservative rather than the DR website), but the experience has turned me off from being a potential contributor in the future.Zooplibob (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Poor baby. You're the first newby I've seen to come out with statements like "Any attempt to revert back to the previous revision will be considered vandalism and promptly removed" (as you did above). Maybe you should learn to walk here before you start throwing your weight around? ► RATEL ◄ 07:08, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop it, Ratel. You're alienating even those who would have tended to support your position. You're being an absolute jerk now, and you need to stop. H₂O Shipper 08:01, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

And that coming from someone whose only contributions to this discussion have been trolling comments. Hmmm. I need to keep Clark's Law in mind sometimes. ► RATEL ◄ 08:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Point out where I've been "trolling." I actually agree more with you on the content than I do with the other views. However, you seem to have taken the view that this is a battleground of some kind, and that insults are somehow appropriate. This type of behavior is reprehensible, Ratel. You're way out of line here. H₂O Shipper 14:21, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

<---outdent

Additionally, Ratel, I've found that those who refer to things like Clark's Law and Hanlon's Razor when referring to people with whom they are disagreeing are normally suffering from a lack of anything constructive to add to the debate. Perhaps a new rule that "the first person to invoke Hanlon's Razor or Clark's Law in a debate loses." H₂O Shipper 17:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

We can certainly mention the "comprehensive list of links" if you like. It's not worth arguing over whether the end-page link collection is selective or not. It probably is, looking at the preponderance of conservative commentators, but it's not that momentous. ► RATEL ◄ 03:25, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

"Preponderance"? I doubt it. I count 14 "conservative" links, and well over a hundred "liberal" ones. Seems like a full roster, in fact. Collect (talk) 11:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Interesting interpretation. I see a long list of conservative commentators listed on his site. ► RATEL ◄ 13:20, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Start at column 1 -- I will not yell. Count (and I suggest Itar-TASS is not "conservative") Note every single liberal blogsite on the list -- none missing. And, more important since the accusation was made, no reciprocal links. Collect (talk) 13:29, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, re: the reciprocal links thing, Drudge leeches images from these sites' servers and deep links into their sites for stories. A lot of them get upset about that. IOW he takes liberties with them, so the links and the Google ranking boost it gives is a a quid pro quo. I'm sure you understand. Nothing for nothing in this world. Thanks for the input. ► RATEL ◄ 14:11, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Shows how much you know. Some sites even put up images to stop Drudge leeching, eg He's a well known image hotlinker (big conflict with Yahoo about it). Then there are people who have had their photos stolen, as they claim. ► RATEL ◄ 23:24, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

See AFP's fights with Google and Yahoo. Drudge is nothing in comparison. As for the photo at issue -- without knowing the source of the photo (clearly the photographer released it to some publisher, else no one could have it) one can not specify "Drudge dun it!" with any certitude at all. And clearly Drudge removed it as soon as he was told, which is what the copyright law says to do. As for all this -- it is irrelevant to any claim that Drudge's links are in any way, shape, manner or form political or that he gets paid in any way by the links he has. As for "shows how much you know" I assure you I am familiar with the economics of web enterprises. Collect (talk) 23:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Soxwon's edit with sources

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

1. "Scandalous scoop breaks online" (html). BBC News. 1998-01-25. Retrieved 2007-06-23.

• Right, there's the edit, without the final sentence in the paragraph. I don't think we need to source the "conservative Matt Drudge" because he has self-described as such. The section on Conservatism in the body of the article needs to be summarised into the lead somehow, but I'm not totally happy with the final sentence by Soxwon quoting HuffPo as a source. I'd prefer something like: "The site is considered to be conservative-leaning (or just "conservative").. ► RATEL ◄ 08:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Soxwon's edit did put it in their twice, once for Drudge and once for his website. They are two different entities, after all, and we have excellent sources for the website being labelled conservative. ► RATEL ◄ 22:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The version I saw did not do so, and the HP cite is ludicrous -- it is pure opinion and must be properly labelled as opinion. Collect (talk) 23:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

HP? HP? I was using FT and EB. So you removed the edit without even checking the sources used, right? ► RATEL ◄ 23:26, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

My version did indeed have the word Conservative in their twice, you can't get around the fact that some feel the site itself is conservative and as such I felt it should be added Soxwon (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

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

And the news aggregation aspect has no such bias- Such bias as you may see is in the now infrequent reports by Drudge himself -- which are a tiny part of the site. Collect (talk) 01:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, come on now. The bias is in the wording of the links on the site. Drudge makes up the wording. And in it's in the stories he highlights as well as the choice not to highlight other stories. It's subtle. But just because it's a little subtle doesn't mean people can't spot it, as the multitude of sources for the conservative tag show. I'm really not sure why you are beating this dead horse. ► RATEL ◄ 03:21, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

So you gave up on him only linking to conservative? Only having conservative headlines? Clue: Most of his headings are from the sources. And EBonline is a good -- wiki. Still. And not owned by EB. Collect (talk) 13:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

EB Online is part of the same corporate structure as print EB, with the same CEO, and I've already told you that the same phrase quoted from online EB as regards DR is in the print version, haven't I? I suggest you study Encyclopædia_Britannica. It makes clear that they are very fussy about contributions, that every contribution is carefully vetted by experts in the area, and that it is quite unlike[REDACTED] in this way. As for the headlines: my take is the same as the rest of the universe, that is that the site is conservative in tone (and I have oodles of confirmatory sources), whereas your impression is almost unique. You are virtually alone in seeing the site as even-handed. WP doesn't feature unusual or fringe viewpoints like yours, just the mainstream. ► RATEL ◄ 13:59, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

They certainly had been "legally separated" in the past -- but that does not alter the "flagged wiki" nature of EB. And specifically the fact that the reference is in the HP article -- there is no reason to hide that fact as cited. And the sentence in which it is found makes the context clear -- that HP was founded as a "liberal" site as it viewed DR as "conservative." Collect (talk) 14:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

See below the flagged nature is bull, as is the "legally seperated." Soxwon (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Protection

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

Outside view

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

The final sentence contains weasel words, is what I think you are trying to say. ► RATEL ◄ 03:08, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

I said what I was trying to say. I'm in no need of your interpretation. H₂O Shipper 03:11, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

• Would someone please take out that terrible last sentence of the lede?!? H₂O Shipper 01:48, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The subject is on lock until we reach a consensus, the discussion for which is above. Soxwon (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• That's fine, but even on lockdown, I think that we can all agree that last sentence is pathetically bad. H₂O Shipper 01:59, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Hence the rewording in the proposal above (please read it, I'm not sure of the wording.) Soxwon (talk) 02:44, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

EB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, well, haven't you been busy. ► RATEL ◄ 02:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Eh? What precisely do you mean by that comment? I periodically recheck cites on pages I watch -- especially when there are redlinks or the like. Don't you? Collect (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me AGF and say "Sure you do!". BTW I don't think the change makes much difference. EB still supports the fact that the site is widely viewed as conservative, which supports the text. ► RATEL ◄ 02:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

And your implication is that I own the EB or the like? C'mon now! That fact is that the EB does NOT say the site is conservative, making its use now quite improper. Find a different cite or just remove the claim. Collect (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a "James Canterbury" submitted a suggestion that resulted in the change on March 4, just when our conversation here on that exact sentence was underway. How strange is that? That change history is clearly and publicly displayed at the EB website under the "Topic History" button, so it's public knowledge. Now what would the chances be that one the editors here were responsible for putting pressure on a source document to change its wording, and just how ethical is that? ► RATEL ◄ 04:39, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The EB is no longer accurately cited for the claim made. Collect (talk) 03:31, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, Collect, you may have something. Why not change the lead ("lead" is a valid alternative to "lede") wording to reflect the new EB wording, which is that the site is widely considered to be conservative? ► RATEL ◄ 04:33, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Some study about Drudge's bias?

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

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

the one you are thinking of is the UCLA one that is in dispute Soxwon (talk) 06:12, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

UCLA still stands by it. Collect (talk) 11:28, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the study that found that The Wall Street Journal has more "liberal bias" than any news outlet surveyed. Hahaha ...aaaah.. ahahahahaha! Bwahaha! (Wipes tear from eye). ► RATEL ◄ 13:24, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's published information that is in dispute, it still makes sense to present the findings, as well as present noteworthy criticisms of the findings. I see no reason to inject personal analysis into any of this. - Chardish (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sure, we can put that garbage on the page, why not? Just be sure to include the many caveats that come with it. ► RATEL ◄ 13:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Your personal opinions have been iterated. This page is to discuss the article. Collect (talk) 14:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out my apparent tautology makes you as guilty as I of straying off topic. ► RATEL ◄ 14:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, media sources all suffer from bias. We know this. That is why we do not selectively ignore media sources under the auspices of assumed bias. - Chardish (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• I think the multiple mentions of conservative is warranted given that there is controversy over the issue with the UCLA study and all. Also, we keep getting driveby editors who delete the word when they see it, and they have to be convinced all over again to allow it to stay. Having a section on "Conservatism" where we make it extremely clear the word does apply has stopped a lot of the driveby editing. So let that section stand please. But I won't oppose Soxwon's removal of the lead's second mention. (BTW, was George Bush a conservative? True conservatives would argue with you on that one). ► RATEL ◄ 22:50, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I'd argue that Bush is a neoconservative, but that's neither here nor there. And I don't think that the eleven mentions are all necessary. Multiple cites, sure, if it's controversial, but not that many mentions. It really looks bad on us; makes it look like we're pushing an agenda. - Chardish (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
    • 11 times??? They need to use that word a little more conservatively. Baseball Bugs 00:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
      • They, by which you mean us? : ) You can edit pages, you know! - Chardish (talk) 00:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
        • "They" would be whoever's got it in there 11 times. Yeh, I need to throw myself into another edit war, sure. How about just deciding ONE place where it should go, which should be sufficient to cover it? Baseball Bugs 00:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

• As per Soxwon, I removed this from the lead para: Encyclopedia Britannica and the Financial Times have stated the site reflects Drudge's conservative political stance.

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

Actually, I meant to have the last line in, it should have it reflecting his views w/o the extraneous "conservative." Soxwon (talk) 03:38, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

This article was much better with an NPOV first sentence. This article is about the website (and links prominently to the article about Drudge himself which says he's conservative right in the first line). Having the last sentence in a one paragraph introduction assert that the website is identified as reflecting Drudge's conservative politics seems the best approach. Having the first sentence of the intro use the "Conservative Matt Drudge" bit is too much (undue weight). Are we going to refer to people with their political affiliation as a first name? Liberal President Barack Obama? Liberal Nancy Pelosi? Come on. This is silliness. No one is trying to hide the politics of the site and its owner operator with a clear and accurate encyclopedic sentence in a short intro. The sentence that states clearly that the site is identified as being conservative and this reflects Drudge's politics is very reasonable and is the proper way to communicate the information. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

It was not WP:UNDUE, it introduces the person who runs it and how they stand politically. Soxwon (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet it's not the Matt Drudge article. It's the Drudge Report article. And the other sentence identifies the politics of Drudge as it relates to the website. This is a much better way of communicating the significance then throwing in the word as if it's his first name. The politics of the owners of other newspapers aren't even mentioned. Why not? SHouldn't Newsweek and the NYT's politics be in the first sentence too if your logic is solid? ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to give ChildofMidnight credit here. It is a bit much to say the site is run by "Conservative Matt Drudge." Since when do we identify people that way. Does Sean Penn's page say that he is a "Liberal American film actor?" We already have a section devoted to the claims of conservatism. Do we really need conservative in front of Matt Drudge, followed by many citations to open the article. It is quite a distraction if you ask me. 24.187.128.136 (talk) 05:58, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

If it bother's you ppl so much, why don't we just go back to labeling the DR conservative and be done with it. Soxwon (talk) 06:05, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I second Soxwon on this. Why not go full circle back to "The DR is a conservative news aggregation website", which is how it is described all over the place (so many cites it's not funny), and gets the concept across succinctly? We can then either delete a lot of the other "conservatives" or drop them into footnotes. Yes? ► RATEL ◄ 06:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I moved it up to the second sentence, but it still seems undue weight. I think it made sense where it was. Please note that the Village Voice and teh Guardian Newspaper, both reknowned for their political slant, don't mention politics in this way. I would also note that checking out some of the citations, they don't look reliable at all. I hope we can agree to a fair compromise and move on. ChildofMidnight (talk) 08:48, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for simply deciding what you want consensus to be, and then going right ahead and installing your version. You are not even trying to make this collaborative. And your arguments are daft. Taking them in turn:

1. doesn't self identify as conservative - so what? It doesn't have to "self-identify" when hundreds of sources have identified it as such, and MD has never repudiated.
2. It's not the most notable aspect of the website - it actually IS the most notable aspect. Almost every mention of the DR in the media has an explicit or implicit mention of the site's political leanings! I have thousands of citations for that.
3. a neutral way of presenting the article - it is totally NPOV. Sources abound.
4. undue weight - ONE WORD is not undue weight in any way.
5. we don't identify websites or news organizations[this is not a news organisation, for the nth time) by their political affiliations or perceived biases in the lead sentence - yes, we do (HuffPo). And if it's sourceable and true, why ever not? Sums it up nicely. Is it shameful to be conservative?

Once again, I ask ChildofMidnight to wait before changing the page. Your arguments are weak. The sources are RS, despite your attempt to cast them as "not reliable at all". ► RATEL ◄ 09:12, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

One of the "sources" is shown to be mutable, and does not support the claim made for it (though you did emend the cite to show the actual quote). You position is clear from preceding posts, so fully iterating it is not that necessary. "One word" when repeated over and over and over can very well hit WP:UNDUE. Collect (talk) 11:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I can live with the lead as Collect has it now. I think Soxwon would too. I realise Conservatism section needs to be rationalised and reworded. Can we move on to that? Or is ChildofMidnight going to keep warring the intro? ► RATEL ◄ 13:28, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, from what I remember there was an RFC requested and the overwhelming majority was against your point of view. ChildOfMidnight is right about the consensus. It seems like you are the only person still arguing for your lost cause. 24.187.128.136 (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

No, it seems like a number of ppl came out of nowhere to suddenly object to conservative. You seem to mistake you opinion and another person's for being consensus. My edit had all the parties involved satisfied save you. Now it seems as if the dispute has not been handled after all. I'm going to request this page be locked (again) until we can sort this out. Soxwon (talk) 17:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Issues to be sorted out

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

1)Where conservative should be mentioned in the lead

2) How many times conservative should be used

3) Fix the conservatism section

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

A block would be in order. Some editors here have no interest in consensus-building. Two small notes: 1) take into account that I have been maintaining this page for years. I am well aware of WP:OWN issues, and I try to listen diligently to criticism of content when it makes sense, but just remember, I'll be here editing this page for many more years. If unsupportable edits are forced onto the page because of sheer numbers (thanks probably to some behind-the-scenes canvassing), they'll eventually be removed. 2) I have written to Encyclopedia Britannica about the subversion of their content and pointed their editorial staff to this Talk page. They'll soon see why that change was suggested by one of our members here, and I hope they will revert it, and lock it. Indeed, I have requested same. ► RATEL ◄ 22:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

1. "The Huffington Post (Web site) -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 2009-03-03. was created to provide a liberal counterpart to the Drudge Report, a news and commentary Web site that was widely viewed as conservative.
2. Cite error: The named reference FT-cons was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

• B-Class WikiProject Business articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles