Talk:The Gateway Pundit/Archive 1

Archive 1

Gateway Pundit Hoft is "unreliable" and "known for spreading hoaxes"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/20/blog-known-for-spreading-hoaxes-says-it-will-have-a-correspondent-in-trump-white-house/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.98.172 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is the first reference added five days before you suggested it, thanks. –2A03:2267:0:0:5804:FDB9:23D2:B389 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Observation

No citation for "alt-right." That is because Gateway Pundit is not alt-right. Alt-right is not a meaningless invective, like "mother f*cking," to use right wing or extremely conservative haven't satiated your anger sufficiently. Twelve years ago, every baddie was a neo-con. Today, it is alt-right. Most people assigned either title would have been better described as annoying-con.

This article seems one-sided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 112.202.98.172 (talk) 23:14, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

How so? I'd like to improve the page. Meatsgains (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

At the moment there's only one 3rd party reference (Washington Post), please add more. The "political" is unspecific, if you actually mean "conservative", with a reference, of course. I considered to suggest www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/01/breaking-lead-plaintiff-trumps-muslim-ban-lawsuit-ties-hamas-supports-sharia/ on Talk:Linda Sarsour, but now I fear it does not (yet) pass WP:42. –2A03:2267:0:0:5804:FDB9:23D2:B389 (talk) 13:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed - more 3rd party references are what we needs more of in this article to strengthen the page's verifiability and avoid POV. Meatsgains (talk) 14:46, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I've added a few additional reliable sources but the page still needs some work. Meatsgains (talk) 16:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

I submitted the sharia URL on the PolitiFact.com site, but their server claimed that their webform did not work. –193.96.224.2 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

No media on commons so far, let alone a category, therefore no {{commonscat}}, therefore no automatical wikidata entry. The promising megynkelly.org/category/the-gateway-pundit/ is apparenty hosted by some hoax site, or in other words, whois data with an anonymous registrant in the UK does not obviously match Megyn Kelly, confirmed by title="The Unofficial Megyn Kelly" on this site. The picture is at least six years old (TinEye query), this leads nowhere.

Another attempt while I haven't closed the Tab: rationalwiki.org/wiki/The_Gateway_Pundit exists, RationalWiki also exists, and they certainly offer a snarky point of view on the Gateway Pundit. But it's not on the m:Interwiki map, and I found no usage as reliable source on enwiki based on WhatLinksHere/rationalwiki. –2A03:2267:0:0:DCBB:74B9:AFB0:2743 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Western Journalism just survived an AfD and mentions the top-ranking political opinion site Conservative Tribune. And a Google search shows, that this site quotes the Gateway Pundit, so maybe folks here could add a new second statement, if there is a proper source somewhere. Or try a slightly silly "see also" section. –2A03:2267:0:0:18E2:8A9C:3705:91ED (talk) 07:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Notability?

This very short article only damns its subject with faint praise (award was only given for a handful of years, and apparently is no longer being awarded). If that is the best one can find on this blog, it isn't notable. Let us put this article out of its misery with an AFD. How does one go about this?--Quisqualis (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Check out the {{afd}} instructions, it's easy: ~5 minutes, 15 minutes for your first AFD including the fix for one fatal error somewhere in the procedure. –2A03:2267:0:0:5C10:B48D:2F98:ABB3 (talk) 15:46, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks!--Quisqualis (talk) 18:38, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 5 March 2017

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved as an uncontroversial technical move without opposition. (non-admin closure) TonyBallioni (talk) 20:13, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

---

Gateway Pundit → The Gateway Pundit – Usage is mixed, but "The Gateway Pundit" predominates on the website's about page and in outside references to the outlet (NY TIMES. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 07:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That would explain TGP, and an ordinary move keeping the redirect could have handled it. But you created The Gateway Pundit, therefore it now requires admin rights to delete the target (no relevant edit history). –2A03:2267:0:0:244D:7659:D007:B779 (talk) 11:55, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Usage is mixed, as I said, and the article title is stable, so is possibly contentious. Requested moves are normally closed by admins. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

That the Gateway Pundit won an award from a conservative group in 2013 does not belong in the lede

There is absolutely zero coverage of this in reliable sources. Just google: "Reed Irvine Award for New Media" "gateway pundit". There are also concerns with WP:DUE, because this award is juxtaposed to the broad consensus among reliable sources that it's a conspiracy site[1]. So, it both misleads readers into thinking the website isn't a conspiracy site and in thinking that it has received a prestigious, notable award for journalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I concur and I will remove it. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect; there is a Huffington Post article that is included as a citation now. Please do some minimal research before removing content. In addition, the phrasing of the sentence was not to try and show both "sides" - it was actually to bring attention to the irony of it all. I'll be reverting your edit. Dvlsnthedtls (talk) 21:39, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I did do the minimal research. I googled "Reed Irvine Award for New Media" "gateway pundit" and there was nothing. Good job on finding one reference to the award and GP through some other search tactic. The source is unreliable (a self-published HuffPo piece) and even mocks the award, so I fail to see how the HuffPo piece bolsters the claim of lede-worthiness and notability. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:53, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversy

The #Controversy section makes no sense for me, one (of numerous) dubious TGP posts (with a primary reference) followed by the 4th (was 5th) reference of the NYT source. Suggestion: Delete the section, good riddance. Or rename it to Trivia. –89.15.236.223 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Final sentence of article introduction

There has been some back and forth regarding the inclusion of the final sentence of the introduction: "The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes." Given the recent uproar and partisan back and forth over "fake news", I think it is best to move this sentence into the controversy section until we can determine what the optimal language for these citations should be (or whether it is sufficient as it currently stands). There have been numerous accusations against both right and left sources (whether it be big media corporations or small shop blogs) as to the doctoring of information to suit their own political needs, and given the mission of Wikipedia to be a neutral, bias-free source, we need to have an in-depth conversation about highly charged content - especially when it is a concluding sentence in an introduction.

Please respond to this with your thoughts and we can hopefully come to mutual conclusion. Thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1017:B803:18F6:9471:E431:96AC:1130 (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC) 

We go by reliable sources. This website is primarily described by RS as one that promotes conspiracy theories and falsehoods, and should be described as such. "Partisan back and forth" over fake news has absolutely nothing to do with any of this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

That's fine that the sentence sources to "reliable sources," but those same "reliable sources" citing to this sentence are also known for spreading false stories, too numerous to count in recent days. The point is not necessarily whether it belongs, but whether this sentence should be in the intro paragraph. Despite CNN and NYT having published false stories, this fact is not in their lead paragraph (e.g. Jim Acosta reporting that Trump had not visited Scalise in the hospital when in fact he had, etc.); Gateway Pundit should be afforded similar accommodations. Alternatively, the fact that a source publishes false stories is not necessarily a fact worthy enough for inclusion in the intro paragraph, i.e. it does not define their existence. In the least, let's discuss here before getting into a revert "war". Dvlsnthedtls (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If you're gonna argue that all news outlets are "fake news", do so on the reliable sources noticeboard. Good luck with that. I'm sure the postmodernist claptrap that "nothing is true" will sound very appealing and that Wikipedia will completely change its RS policy for you. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

If we are not able to engage in a civil debate about the placement of this sentence, we will have to formalize this dispute so we can get more clear heads on both sides of this debate. No argument has been made to date as to why this sentence needs to be in the introductory paragraph, and that shows that we will need to take this issue to editors who are willing to actually engage in a productive discussion. There can't be editors who hijack pages who don't support their decisions with sound reasoning. I personally would much rather keep this discussion natural and organic on this page, debating the word choice and placement amongst ourselves, but that is not possible at this point. Dvlsnthedtls (talk) 14:35, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

It has been explained to you: When RS cover the Gateway Pundit, they do so in the context of Gateway Pundit's tendency to publish falsehoods and hoaxes. That's what Gateway Pundit is prominent for, and should therefore be mentioned in the lede. Your retort to this is that NYT and CNN are also fake news and that there is no such thing as a reliable source, and that Wikipedia shouldn't rely on RS over BS sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

That's not my retort - please read my words more carefully before concocting what my argument is from your vantage point. The fact of the matter is that RS also publish many stories that are later retracted for containing false or misleading information. It has happened numerous times by CNN, NYT, FoxNews, Politico, WaPo, and others just in the last 6-8 months. It's a fact of being in the breaking news business. These RS's acknowledge the falsehoods that were published (or at least modified or deleted the material); that is not up for debate and I need not list the myriad of examples to prove my point. In addition, many of these same outlets call the other outlets out for publishing the falsehoods - it's all part of the game. That this happens quite often to RS's does not make them unreliable sources under Wikipedia policy/standards, and I agree with that. Second, you haven't addressed my point about where this sentence should be placed, or why it should be in the first paragraph. This is a very old blog, and the RS's speaking of false hoaxes and falsehoods are quite recent; I think your zeal to keep it in the intro might smell of WP:Recentism. Dvlsnthedtls (talk) 15:20, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

When RS refer to this website, they do so in the context of its conspiracy theories and falsehoods. When RS refer to CNN, NYT, WSJ, WaPo, they do not refer to those news outlets as "conspiracy sites" or say that they periodically publish hoaxes and falsehoods. We go by what RS report. Were WSJ and NYT to refer to CNN as a "conspiracy site", Wikipedia would as well. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:38, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The complaint of recentism is laughable. This Wikipedia article was created in Jan 2017, and the website's only claim to notability is in its conspiracy-mongering and hoax-spreading during and after the 2016 presidential election. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:47, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure when an article was created has anything to do with what the content of the article should be. That logic is severely flawed. WP:Recentism claim stands. Dvlsnthedtls (talk) 15:54, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

The only reason why this article exists is due the website's actions and notability during the 2016 presidential election and after (e.g. given White House press credentials). There is nothing notable about it before that period. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR Dvlsnthedtls (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

NYT: "The Gateway Pundit, a provocative conservative blog, gained notice last year for its fervent pro-Trump coverage and its penchant for promoting false rumors about voter fraud and Hillary Clinton’s health that rocketed around right-wing websites." Politico: "Among the herd of reporters filing past an oil portrait of Hillary Clinton in the vaulted Center Hall of the White House on Monday afternoon walked Jim Hoft, publisher of the Gateway Pundit, a conservative blog founded at the outset of George W. Bush’s second term. It was a banner moment for the decade-old website... Gateway Pundit has gained notice for a number of its recent missteps". But "fake news!!!", I guess. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Please substantiate your claim that this website was notable before, say, 2015. Find substantial RS coverage of the website. Should be very easy to substantiate. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dvlsnthedtls: The Gateway Pundit is very clearly not The New York Times. The lead should reflect what the subject is notable for. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Do those (currently) nine references support the claim that the website is known for [whatever] or are they nine examples of [whatever]? 173.228.123.189 (talk) 06:28, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Update: eight. –89.15.236.223 (talk) 01:15, 15 September 2017 (UTC) (was 2A03:... IPv6 above)

Update: Again nine now as cite bundle. Fun stuff, but—@Edaham:—still at the wrong side of WP:UNDUE for five uses of one NYT source, only hiding it better. –2.247.246.3 (talk) 05:51, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

was that a thank you? It sounds like you are trying to thank me. Edaham (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

The "thanks" thingy requires a login, almost the only feature I miss without logging in. –2.247.244.161 (talk) 07:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Fell for the joke claim that ": “November 4th […] millions of antifa supersoldiers will behead all white parents”"

At [2] (they've added a correction). Found this here. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

False stories

Are we going to allow the False stories section to be expanded every time the Gateway Pundit is exposed? I'd imagine its only going to continue to grow. At what point do the examples become WP:UNDUE? Might be worth only including a couple of the most notable instances. Thoughts? Meatsgains^(talk) 02:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I also noticed that there is a tag in this section requesting for expansion. Is this really needed? Meatsgains^(talk) 02:18, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the tag but there are several particularly galling and notable events that are covered in the RS in the link-bundle in the lede, so it would be fairly easy to expand that section. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

If there is RS coverage, there is no problem. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:21, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough - just want to prevent non-notable stories to be added because I can see where this is headed. I've removed the tag though. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand. A user introduced a primary source to the section earlier today. I was restricted by 3RR so I couldnt revert, but I'm glad that you just did. Primary sources are of course a no-no. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see. That definitely needed to be removed. Meatsgains^(talk) 02:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

The removal of this content suffers from a knee-jerk case of failing to heed WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD. The primary source in this case is a great example of expounding on and providing context to a very limited and generalized statement in a secondary source. The primary source citation here is by no means WP:OR, and any seasoned and honest editor knows that. Please refrain from removing content that helps give Wikipedia readers a fuller understanding of the truth, and the facts. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 07:48, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

There is no need to kick that straw man with your own knee jerk. No one is saying that the content you added was original research or that primary sources should be avoided altogether. You should have read this discussion before posting. The concern is that if we start relying on primary sources for this section in particular that we will end up giving undue weight to the false stories. Not everything that is verifiable about the subject belongs in the article, even if it gives a "fuller understanding of the truth, and the facts." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

In regards to The Gateway Pundit promoting false rumors about Hillary Clinton's health, is there another example other than the claim that she "looks like death"? Thats an opinion, not a rumor. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:39, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

I have no interest in digging through GP's past stories to categorize their content and fact-check them. It's a waste of time. We have the NYT as a source for this. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:55, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

One source making the claim and linking this Gateway Pundit article is WP:UNDUE. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:50, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd like to hear from others as well. Might be worth opening up an RfC. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:53, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

It's incredible how some on this page are willing to spend hours monitoring (er policing) this site, yet suddenly lack vigor to look into one primary source to let the Wiki reader corroborate what is clearly a shoddy job done by the NYT in this instance (no "reliable" source is ever perfect). There is no blanket prohibition to using primary sources in limited circumstances (other than self-proclaimed laziness at opportune moments), and my prior edits referencing the original article were fair and contextual. This specific issue is clear as day - the I am in favor of RfC. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Clear as day? What I see in your post above is a lack of good faith in other editors and an unclear statement. What exactly do you want? Others to do something for you, ie "look into one primary source"? Can't you look into it? In any case, as with similar sections in other articles (eg about a group's activities), we use secondary sources. Doug Weller talk 13:28, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Three additional RS have been added which substantiate that GP promoted false stories about Clinton's health. I even added quotes to the refs. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:44, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the sources. This one in particular clearly lays out the rumors on her health. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:47, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

All editors need to read the sources they include before accusing other editors of WP:OR. This seems rather fundamental and yes, is an indication of bad faith. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 17:55, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Washington Times

(Previously titled: How did my deletion of the Moony owned Washington Times as a sole source, replacing it with a CN tag, take a hacksaw to the article)

Enquiring minds want to know. The inadvertent lack of a space? And loved the " CNN and NYT are here, Washington Times stays." Yes sir! Seriously, you think they are equivalent? 11:02, 9 March 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Doug Weller (talk • contribs)

The hacksaw comment was ridiculous, but I thought the consensus is that the Washington Times is a generally reliable outlet? —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

It has its supporters, of course, but I think this is the latest RSN discussion[3] and towards the bottom I link to two others. It's got a circulation just under 60,000 as compared to the Post's about 475,000, so it's hardly a major newspaper. It's on of those papers where normally if you can't find a better source the material doesn't belong in the article. I've decided not to use it in the past even where it might have been useful because I see it on par with the UK's Daily Mail. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't see any comments in those discussions saying that WT is unreliable. I do see a number of comments that while WT is reliable, it tends to be biased and weight toward non-noteworthy subjects, and that it should be avoided when the same content is available elsewhere, a view I share. A subset of these comments (not a consensus) said that if a story is covered only by the WT, then it's not sufficiently noteworthy and should be omitted outright (presumably because Wikipedia is not a newspaper). My personal feeling is that this needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the nature of the content and the size of our article. In this particular case the content seems noteworthy to me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm glad we have these thoughts memorialized for future reference. So glad. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 16:39, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Negative comments included "best avoided in most cases", "a poor newspaper and should be avoided", "a very dubious source for racially charged material", "borderline", "avoid for contentious statements", "should almost always be avoided". Just for the record for future reference. Even the comments that said it was reliable but should be avoided when the content can be found elsewhere often qualified it by suggesting that it it just barely meets our criteria. What does 'noteworthy' mean if not personal opinion? Do you mean significant as in WP:UNDUE? Doug Weller talk 17:21, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

By "noteworthy" I mean surviving WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which it appears is what's really at issue here (not WP:V). And yes, evaluating WP:NOTEVERYTHING requires considerable editorial discretion, especially in scenarios when we'd be relying on these sorts of sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Ah, now I see, thanks for the explanation. Have we got other sources? Doug Weller talk 19:17, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we have Daily Beast and Media Matters for America. I generally try to avoid MMfA since I haven't seen a consensus on its reliability. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:16, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Article lead

Hi. The current version of the article reads:

Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a pro-Trump conservative political (blog) website founded by Jim Hoft after the United States presidential election, 2004.[2][3][4][5]

I think the phrase "pro-Trump" has issues with neutrality and with accuracy. It's also pretty weird to call out a blog for being "pro-Trump" while simultaneously noting that it was founded after the 2004 election (as opposed to, say, the 2016 election). Thoughts? --MZMcBride (talk) 22:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that may have been its claim to fame at the time the article was written, but the blog ought to have more to commend it. Have you gleaned any clues by reading older posts?--Quisqualis (talk) 23:37, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The New York Times describes it as a "pro-Trump blog" and says its notability is tied directly to its "fervent pro-Trump coverage": "White House Grants Press Credentials to a Pro-Trump Blog... The Gateway Pundit, a provocative conservative blog, gained notice last year for its fervent pro-Trump coverage and its penchant for promoting false rumors about voter fraud and Hillary Clinton’s health that rocketed around right-wing websites."[4] I therefore believe that it is accurate to describe the website as a pro-Trump conservative blog website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

If that's the case, then my suggestion that we put this article out of its misery may come to pass sooner rather than later.--Quisqualis (talk) 04:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I think it's notable. Give me a week after this RM closes and I'll improve it beyond a doubt. (seems like getting repeat press credentials from Trump should qualify it as automatically notable.) Mark Schierbecker (talk) 09:16, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the website is notable enough to have its own Wikipedia article. Like InfoWars and Breitbart, the website gets extensive coverage by reliable sources, it did get press credentials by the Trump White House, and appears to have the ears of the President and his staff.) Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:21, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. This is not a neutral website nor do they try to be. It is a left wing blog. Any news source which is not left wing will have a lead similar to this where they are trying to convince their readers that the site is bad. They cant just be conservative they must be "far right" and so forth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:100A:B127:6565:358B:453E:268B:B849 (talk) 12:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Thy word has been done.--Quisqualis (talk) 05:38, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

ser talk:2600:6C56:6E00:56C:0:196E:76B9:4CCE#top|talk]]) 14:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Mass-removal of reliably sourced content

Noto-Ichinose, please explain why you mass-removed content from the article[5], and why you insist on saying that GP "broke a story" when the cited source does not say that GP broke a story. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Search result summary info not found or sourced in actual article

Hi, when you search for The Gateway Pundit online, you get this response summary from Wikipedia:

Gateway Pundit is a conservative political blog founded by Jim Hoft after the United States presidential election, 2004. It is allied with Donald Trump and elements of the alt-right and extreme right in American politics. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.

Yet there is NOTHING in this article, and NOTHING sourced related to the claims:

1: It is allied with Donald Trump 2: It is allied with...elements of the "alt-right" 3: It is allied with..."extreme right" in American politics

This seems to be a smear job by Wikipedia, with no sourcing or corroborating info on this site related to these unsubstantiated claims. Obviously, this was purposely concocted using Weasel Words as a smear by subscribers of a certain opposing political bent, and since there is NO SOURCE for these claims, should be challenged. (Were Wikipedia actually trying to maintain impartiality, that is).

What a travesty this website has become. I no longer expect anyone to do anything about the prevelent leftward-leaning biases being propagated around here. Sad. 180.23.126.34 (talk) 03:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Removed "conservative" and "alt-right"

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "the body of the article does not identify the blog as either "conservative" or "alt-right". --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Again... discussion taking place (just as it is at the D'Souza article). You shouldn't have removed it. Please self-revert, K.e.coffman. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:22, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There's no description in the body of the blog as "conservative" nor "alt-right"; I was making sure that the categories, templates and infobox are consistent with the present state of the article. I see that "far-right" was being discussed. If the discussion results in an outcome, then these can be updated. --K.e.coffman (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

They should only self revert when the discussion has taken place. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:27, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

There is discussion taking place re: the lead and that terminology/type of terminology, Emir. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 19:29, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Where? K.e.coffman (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Pro-Trump"

An IP number, Winkelvi and Noto-Ichinose have removed the reliably sourced description "pro-Trump" from the lede. This description is reliably sourced, and it's one of the things that this far-right conspiracy website is notable for. I'll quote my comment from a discussion in March 2017:

• The New York Times describes it as a "pro-Trump blog" and says its notability is tied directly to its "fervent pro-Trump coverage": "White House Grants Press Credentials to a Pro-Trump Blog... The Gateway Pundit, a provocative conservative blog, gained notice last year for its fervent pro-Trump coverage and its penchant for promoting false rumors about voter fraud and Hillary Clinton’s health that rocketed around right-wing websites."[6] I therefore believe that it is accurate to describe the website as a pro-Trump conservative blog website.

In addition, AP[7], Politifact[8], Politico[9], and more describe it as "pro-Trump". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Good for them. They call it pro-Trump. Wikipedia can't call it pro-Trump in Wiki-voice - especially if the website itself does not label itself as such. Improper use of wiki-voice has been pointed out to you time and again, over and over, in article after article. There are ways to word it without it being in Wiki-voice and still get "pro-Trump" in there if it's an integral and important point to make in the article. Are you interested in knowing how or figuring it out on your own? Because, I'm certain that if I write it with the proper tone, you will revert it and say it's "whitewashing". Your choice, just let me know how you want to handle it. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:38, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, yes it can if multiple sources do.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:18, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

If multiple high-quality sources say that the website is "pro-Trump", and they characterize the pro-Trump coverage as a crucial factor in the website's notoriety, then it's uncontroversial to describe it as such in the lede in Wiki voice. There are as far as I can tell no RS that dispute the characterization (you have certainly not brought any RS to bear). What this crank website calls itself has no bearing on whether we should describe it as "pro-Trump" in Wiki voice. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:52, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"What this crank website calls itself has no bearing on whether we should describe it as "pro-Trump" in Wiki voice." Except it does. In another article, maybe. In the article about the website, it most certainly does matter. Especially in the lead. We don't characterize websites or television shows or news networks or songs or bands based on what reliable sources do or don't call them. You can add that sources refer to them differently than the article subject does, but you don't characterize it as such in the lead only as reliable sources refer to it and characterize it. On the websites "About" page, they refer to themselves as a political website. That's what the lead needs to say. If you want to put later on in the article that this source or that source sees it as far-right and "pro-Trump", fine. But we can't say it in Wiki-voice and it should not be in the first couple of sentences of the article lead. Also, I'm wondering if you should be editing the article at all considering this from you, "this crank website". I really don't care what you personally think of the website, and truthfully, no one should know. Do you know what I think of the website? Nope. And that's because I don't broadcast my bias on Wikipedia nor do I let it affect my writing in Wikipedia articles. That's being neutral - as every editor needs to be (in a perfect world). Your bias against the website is now coming across in your writing/contributions here. You might want to recuse yourself from contributing if you cannot hide that bias in your editing choices. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"Except it does. " - not according to Wikipedia policy it doesn't.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:19, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You want to lede to say somewhere that "Gateway Pundit describes itself as "political website""? I see absolutely no reason to add that vague and pointless self-description. That said, that's a completely separate question from whether we should describe it as "pro-Trump". I recommend you start a separate discussion about GP's self-description. "We don't characterize websites or television shows or news networks or songs or bands based on what reliable sources do or don't call them." Nope, that's precisely what we do. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:22, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I'm not sure I'm following, Wikipedia can't call it pro-Trump in Wiki-voice - especially if the website itself does not label itself as such. We don't use self-identification exclusively for organised groups, parties, individuals, etc. -- we go with what reliable sources say. Such sources are listed at the top of the thread. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

"You want to lede to say somewhere that "Gateway Pundit describes itself as "political website""? I see absolutely no reason to add that vague and pointless self-description." Why am I not surprised you see it that way? And no, I didn't say the article should say what you've quoted above.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about, since you seem to either be totally missing the obvious or are acting obtuse: "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a political website founded in late 2004, following the November presidential election. Beginning the site as a blog, TGP's founder, Jim Hoft, has stated he began the website in order to "speak the truth" and "expose the wickedness of the left". Beginning as a one-person enterprise, TGP has expanded into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue."

That's how the lead in an encyclopedia article starts, not with biased characterizations and loads of references to backup the bias (references, generally, are not meant to be in the lead anyway). If you want to then add that the website is characterized by other media outlets as far right and pro-Trump, then it should be done like so: "TGP has been characterized by various media outlets as a far-right and pro-Donald Trump website. Sean Hannity of Fox News as well as the Drudge Report, former vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, and other well-known conservative commentators and media outlets often cite or link to The Gateway Pundit. It has been characterized as publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes. President Donald Trump has been known to read and refer to the website."

Neutral, with encyclopedic tone, and no POV or attempts at WP:SYNTH and editorializing - just the facts. That's a proper lead. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:43, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

• We don't need to say that the sky is blue; compare with "TGP has been characterized by various media outlets..." This reminds me of the debates on some of the far-right figures, such as Jared Taylor. This is false neutrality. K.e.coffman (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
• No, we don't need to attribute uncontroversial RS descriptions (e.g. "various media outlets say"). There's nothing biased about describing GP as a "far-right, pro-Trump" website. There's no WP:SYNTH in the lede. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:51, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Pinging editors who have been involved in this article's creation as well as previous discussions regarding the article and lead's WP:TONE, WP:POV, and use of terms such as "far right" and "pro-Trump". Asking them to read this entire discussion and weigh in to hopefully get a consensus. Thanks. MZMcBride, Dvlsnthedtls, 2.247.244.161, Meatsgains, It'sAllinthePhrasing, DrFleischman, Doug Weller, 180.23.126.34. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Re-pinging Fleischman since the original ping contained an error DrFleischman. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I don't yet have an opinion on this. But, I would appreciate it if anyone adding comments that has come from this edit[10] identify themselves as it appears to be yet another instance of canvassing from that page. Call this aspersions if you want. I've just never seen this kind of repeated activity before. O3000 (talk) 00:28, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

It's neither canvassing nor is it unusual. Happens frequently. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:51, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it does happen frequently -- by you. I stand by my request. O3000 (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Not really. But I've been pinged in dozens of discussions at talk pages where I haven't commented for a while, simply because I've had a previous interest in the topic or a topic similar. I'm certain plenty of other editors can say the same. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a note re whether this is canvassing: per WP:APPNOTE, which describes some of the acceptable and appropriate ways of notifying others, "An editor who may wish to draw a wider range of informed, but uninvolved, editors to a discussion can place a message at any of the following: 1) The talk page or noticeboard of one or more WikiProjects or other Wikipedia collaborations which may have interest in the topic under discussion." --MelanieN (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

If they "may have an interest", the concern arises as to why they have that interest. That particular WikiProject keeps attracting that concern because it has been organized around a political point of view as much as it was organized around a content topic. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• I saw the posting at the WikiProject Conservatism talk page, and came here from it. I watchlist that talk page, and try to look at every discussion that is posted about there. And when I decide to comment as a result, I do so with a very clear awareness that, if anyone thought that editors with a particular point of view would show up, I will be doing my best to counter that effort by offering what I think and hope is a neutral point of view. It looks very clear to me that there is reliable sourcing that indicates that the page subject is indeed Pro-Trump, to the extent that it is entirely appropriate to describe it as such in Wikipedia's voice. If, hypothetically, GP had announced that they were unhappy with being associated with Trump and wished to distance themselves from him, then that would have been another matter entirely. But I'm not seeing that in the sourcing, and I'm therefore finding it quite odd that a few editors seem to be treating the description "Pro-Trump" as though it were something pejorative, in the way that a description such as "racist" would be. Go figure. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:48, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Important context here is that Winkelvi, the editor who is so forcefully arguing that we can't use "pro-Trump" in wiki voice, is basically just stalking me around Wikipedia (i.e. going to pages that he's never edited before) and spuriously reverting me. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:56, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

• Meh, I'm more interested in the content than in the contributor. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:59, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Snooganssnoogans. Does "pro-Trump" need to be in the first paragraph? We could say something like "Since 2016, news outlets including the Associated Press, Politico, and ... have described the publication as pro-Trump." in the lead section, but not in the lead paragraph. I think it can be true that news outlets describe a publication as leaning one way or another and it can also be true that it is inappropriate to inject that label into a subject's Wikipedia article so prominently. That is, while it's indisputable that outlets such as the Associated Press and Politico have described The Gateway Pundit as "pro-Trump" in their coverage, that doesn't necessarily mean we should re-use this term when explaining what The Gateway Pundit is in our encyclopedia article about it.

We should also try to view this article in its larger context: it was founded in 2004, not 2016. And it's possible that The Gateway Pundit will outlive the current Trump era. We should frame the publication in this context, in my opinion. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

RS explicitly tie GP's notoriety to its pro-Trump content. There is, dare I say, ZERO RS coverage of this website that precedes its coverage of the 2016 presidential campaign and Trump. At the very least, I asked for evidence of RS coverage prior to 2015 (in a June 2017 discussion[11]) and did not received a response. The Wikipedia page itself wasn't even created until January 2017. It's a crucial element of the website's identity. If the website become notorious for something else later on, we can update the lede to reflect that. In the same way that we can change the lede to InfoWars if the far-right conspiracy outlet at some point turns into a credible news outlet and wins some Pulitzer prizes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:53, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Can you find any example on the English Wikipedia where we use a similar label in an article? I'm trying to think of a case where we describe a publication as pro-Clinton or anti-Trump or similar in the lead of the subject's article. We do not do this for Breitbart, The Washington Times, The Washington Post, MSNBC, et al. I can't think of any case where we specifically call out a publication's views toward an individual in the lead section of the article. Where else are we doing this? Do you think The Gateway Pundit is unique? --MZMcBride (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes, GP is unique, because unlike those other outlets, its notoriety is directly tied to its pro-Trump coverage. The ledes of figures, such as Lou Dobbs and Sean Hannity who have received extensive RS coverage over their uniquely and highly prominent pro-Trump advocacy also mention the pro-Trump advocacy, but even those figures are notable for more things than the sycophantic pro-Trump coverage. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

It's not unique and as MZMcBride correctly pointed out (and as I pointed out in my edit summary when I removed the content that was then reverted back in [12] [13]), the site was founded 12 years before the 2016 election, 11 years before Trump announced his run for the presidency. The lead's opening paragraph is meant to be for what makes the article subject most notable overall, not what the week's current news cycle claims for its notability or what's been going on with the article subject most recently. Nor are we supposed to create a genre for media articles, which is what labeling the website "pro-Trump" is doing, despite what the website's About page says about its purpose. Here's an old but valid example: Both Olivia Newton-John and John Denver won awards in the Country Music category at music award ceremonies back in the 1970s. Both of them had recorded what were considered "Country" songs. True Country Music artists were angered and insulted that they won those awards. Why? Because to them, recording one or a few country-type songs does not a Country Music artist make. And they were right - neither artist embodied that label nor did they earn it as their identity prior to those few recordings or after. This is the same damn thing. Yes, Gateway Pundit does post pro-Trump articles. But in 11 years before Trump what did they post? Pro-Trump articles? Nope. That's roughly 4,200 days of no pro-Trump possibilities vs. roughly 912 days of pro-Trump possibilities (only 22% of all posting days since 2004) ... but you want to say that minority percentage is what defines the website and it should be in the lead paragraph? Sorry, but your argument does not hold water statistically, logically, or realistically. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 16:23, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

We have no idea what this website was about before Trump because there is literally no RS coverage about this website before Trump. What the website did prior to 2015 is of no significance at all, as substantiated by the complete dearth of RS coverage of the website. Randy Bryce has spent a minority of his life in politics, yet we accurately describe him as a "politician" and devote most of the article to his career in politics, because that's what RS cover. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:49, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

"What the website did prior to 2015 is of no significance at all" Holy crap.

If that's what you truly believe, I have serious qualms with you editing this article. But that statement does explain why you are working so hard to keep the article lead in the state it's in. Yikes. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 18:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, MZMcBride's suggested sentence, to be somewhere in the lead section, is a reasonable one. Given the year it was founded, and even if it had existed quietly pre-Trump, it's perfectly reasonable to indicate that the "pro-Trump" description began with Trump instead of beginning at the founding – and I'm also OK with putting it in terms of "described as pro-Trump", even though as I said earlier I do not think it is necessary to do that. This isn't a win-or-lose battle here. It's an editorial decision. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The "pro-Trump" label is perfectly fine, and it's unreasonable to expect that people would believe that descriptions apply to organizations and individuals for all of their existence. In other words, it's unreasonable to change the description "X is a politician" to "X has been a politician since year Y" because people would mistakenly believe X was a politician when he was an infant. However, it's perfectly fine for me also to simply say early on in the lede that "GP came to prominence in 2016 for its staunchly pro-Trump coverage" (which mirrors language in the NYT source mentioned at the top). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:36, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Assuming that all of the sourcing supports that, I like that even better. Maybe there would be a better word choice than "staunchly", or we could leave that word out, I'm not sure. But putting the emphasis on coming to prominence in 2016 is an excellent idea, because it does explain the history and doesn't get bogged down in who described it that way. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:42, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

The NYT uses the term "fervent". Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

In my opinion, we should avoid either "staunchly" or "fervent" in Wikipedia's voice. I just made and self-reverted this edit: [14]. I suggest that this wording would communicate everything that we need to communicate about it in the lead, while circumventing the issues on which editors disagree. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:11, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

That version is fine with me. I do think we need to note that the pro-Trump coverage is on-going (i.e. not just tied to the 2016 campaign), so I think it would be wise to add pro-Trump coverage to this sentence in the second lede paragraph: "The website is known *for its pro-Trump coverage,* and for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes." Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

This is my suggestion for the lead opening paragraph:

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a politically conservative website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004, according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left". It came to prominence in 2016 for its favorable coverage of the presidential campaign of Donald Trump[11] and has been characterized in media as not just conservative, but far-right conservative.

• For the second lead paragraph:

Over time, The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[12][13] During the 2016 presidential campaign, over a million unique visitors a day visited the website.[14] The Gateway Pundit is often linked to or cited by Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, as well as the Drudge Report, Sarah Palin, and other well-known conservative people and media outlets. The website has been criticized for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.

• • The third paragraph needs to be deleted from the lead. It has nothing to do with the website directly as it's solely about Trump and has no place in the lead. Even if in the body of the article, it still not about the website/article subject, but about Trump and is merely trivia. Per MOS/policy, content should be focused on the article subject and be encyclopedic in nature. This paragraph fails both standards.

-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Per RS it's "a far-right website". It's WP:WEASEL to say it's "politically conservative" but that it "has been characterized as... far-right conservative". It's also WP:WEASEL to say GP has been "criticized" for publishing falsehoods and hoaxes. It simply HAS published falsehoods and hoaxes, and it's a primary reason why website is notable. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:35, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

It would be WP:WEASEL in the body of the article but is simply not suited for the lead which is to be completely a WP:NPOV conglomerative snippet, not a POV agenda driven hit piece that misleads readers. Think of the lead as a wordier version of the infobox. As I wrote it above, what you want re: falsehoods and hoaxes is there, you can expand on that in the body of the article. Same goes for far-right. "Conservative" isn't just a politically-related term, after all - it applies to how we are to present content in the lead. Read WP:MOSLEAD for more. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:50, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I think that we are making progress here, so that's good. And I agree with both of you about removing the third paragraph from the lead; that was bothering me too. I am also pleased that we seem to agree in part about "It came to prominence in 2016 for its favorable coverage of the presidential campaign of Donald Trump". That said, I'm going to disagree with Snooganssnoogans about his comment before the outdent, about "for its pro-Trump coverage".

I think it's redundant to insert "pro-Trump" because that's already clear without it. And I think we have a decision point here about the sentence "The website is known for (has been criticized for) publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes." If we were to add "known for its pro-Trump coverage" to that same sentence, it would dilute the main point of the sentence, because falsehoods and hoaxes are really the primary basis of notability, and the source material makes it clear that there is no genuine disagreement that those are falsehoods and hoaxes. If there were reliable sources saying that those things were not false, then we might want to say "criticized for", but here, there is no good reason not to say it directly, and to do otherwise would mislead readers.

For similar reasons, I agree with Snooganssnoogans and disagree with Winkelvi about "politically far-right" in the lead sentence. It's misleading to imply that it has only been "characterized in the media" that way, as though the media characterization might have had its own agenda. It's what is indicated by the overwhelming preponderance of reliable sourcing, and I see no reason to infer that GP would object to the characterization (although I could well envision center-right conservatives objecting to being put in the same category as GP).

So here is what I suggest:

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a politically far-right[2][3][4][5][6][7] website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004,[8][9] according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left".[10] It came to prominence in 2016 for its favorable coverage of the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[11]

Over time, The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[12][13] During the 2016 presidential campaign, over a million unique visitors a day visited the website.[14] The Gateway Pundit is often linked to or cited by Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, as well as the Drudge Report, Sarah Palin, and other well-known conservative people and media outlets.[11] The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.[15][16][6][17]

--Tryptofish (talk) 17:05, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

This version is fine. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:11, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel it's the best version for the article for the sake of neutrality or readership. We can do better and in a true encyclopedic, NPOV manner. The Pundit doesn't refer to itself in the genre of "far right", therefore, it should not be characterized as so in Wiki-voice. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 20:41, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

At this point, I would hope that we can focus on the words "politically far-right" in the first sentence, and otherwise agree on the rest of the lead. I've just gone through every source cited in the lead once more, in order to look specifically at the terms that they use, and I've gotta say that "far-right" is overwhelmingly the term that comes up. Give GP's status as a purveyor of falsehoods, I think that we have to be cautious in accepting their self-description uncritically, so long as we have solid sourcing from independent reliable sources. I think simply saying "conservative" in Wikipedia's voice would be dishonest, because this is very, very far from the conservatism of Goldwater, Dole, Kemp, and so on. (It would be like calling Antifa a "liberal" group.) I could go along with "right-wing" (or, perhaps, "right-leaning" or "conservative-right", but probably not), and I'm willing to consider other possibilities, but I think that we need to locate it farther right than "conservative", and it would be inappropriate to use modifiers such as "described as". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 21:43, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Any suggestions, then? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. My suggested re-write of the lead is above, near the top of the section. From yesterday. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:02, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I see. It appears to me that you do not have consensus for that, and that the reasons for disagreeing with your suggestion have been explained clearly. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Tryptofish, can we move ahead with your version? I support it, and seems like both Coffman and Marek support the language although they have not specifically commented on your version (they agree that "pro-Trump" can be in Wiki voice). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I already made this edit: [15]. I think that covers it. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Italics?

Should The Gateway Pundit be in italic font, instead of plain font? --Tryptofish (talk) 23:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Italics. Similar to The New York Times. Sdmarathe (talk) 11:44, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

The recent funny stuff

So... anyone wanna tackle the whole Wohl and Mueller stuff [16]? Volunteer Marek 02:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to touch this. It should be included at some point; maybe we can wait a week to do it? power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Casprings and Soibangla: may be interested in adding something now, though. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:53, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018

2601:405:4302:147:44AB:E681:C560:BA2E (talk) 22:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Please remove the reference to HOAX and fake news. CNN is just as pervasive in their conspiracy theories and fake news!

•  Not done: This has been discussed. The article agrees with reliable sources. O3000 (talk) 22:34, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Oxford study calls GP "junk news"

Last week, the Oxford researchers released their study that concluded political news from conservative news outlets and right-wing sites like Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and The Daily Caller were circulating on Twitter more than articles from traditional sources. The researchers said they classified stories from those outlets as “junk news.” soibangla (talk) 23:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Fake News? and Far Right...

Weasel Words... unneeded... removing

98.224.129.251 (talk) 22:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

These are not weasel words, and should not have been removed as it’s one of the most active fake news sites. [17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22] O3000 (talk) 20:42, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It'sAllinthePhrasing let's discuss. I haven't seen you give much of a rationale for the removal, so could you explain it further? an assertion that it is "contentious" not backed by any sources does not seem much of a reason to remove when there are multiple sources to support it and it is clearly a defining feature that the website spreads conspiracy theories and fake news/falsehoods. ("The allegations still took off as far-right news sites tied to Wohl and known for spreading fake news and disinformation published viral posts. Gateway Pundit", from NBCnews etc) Galobtter ::(pingó mió) 20:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The point is simple: "fake news" is an incredibly amorphous, insinuating, and vague word that should not be used in the lede on a neutral site like Wikipedia. There are plenty of news sites that are labeled as fake news, even by reliable sources, but that does not mean such a descriptor belongs in the lede. Words have meanings, and we have debated constantly the meanings of words on this page like "conservative," "right-wing," "alt-right," etc. I trust our debate over what fake news is would be just as long of a discussion, likely longer than the aforementioned. Moreover, we all know that many readers stop reading after the first paragraph or so, so we much be uber-vigilant not to tip the scales out of neutrality and push terms that do not give a clear, complete picture. Therefore, AT BEST, a descriptor belongs in a section below where the reader can distinguish for him or herself the stories that TGP propagated and why reliable sources. And, as a matter of fact, we already have a section devoted to it. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 20:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Where did you get the idea of "a neutral site like Wikipedia"? Do you mean that all content must appear neutral? Just because Wikipedia (IOW its editors) must remain neutral in how they present content, that doesn't mean content is neutral. Not at all. NPOV makes it clear that neither content nor sources must be "neutral". It is EDITORS who must be neutral in how they accurately document often non-neutral content found in often biased sources. We must preserve that bias and make sure the article's readers sense it the way the original source meant it to be sensed. Maybe you should read one of my essays that deals with this aspect of the NPOV policy: NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content

We are not allowed to censor, neuter, or neutralize what sources say. We must handle them neutrally and dispassionately. If a source says someone's an "idiot", we don't refuse to use that source, nor do we write they are "a bit controversial". No, we write "idiot" (or whatever epithet, even the worst, is used), and we attribute it if necessary. If they are so much of an idiot that it's a "sky is blue" situation, we don't even need attribution or quote marks, since everyone knows they are an idiot.

In this case, we document what numerous RS say, and it's the fact that The Gateway Pundit pushes fake news and far-right conspiracy theories all the time. It's their "thing", just as it is Alex Jones's "thing" to push conspiracy theories. In this case, if readers stop after the first paragraph, they better leave here with the clear knowledge that RS call The Gateway Pundit a right-wing fake news and conspiracy theory pushing website. That's very important for them to know. Hopefully they will then stop using it at all.

As editors we must ONLY use RS, and we, and our readers, should also do the same in our lives. We serve facts here, and we also document opinions. We also know the difference between a fact and an opinion, as well as when they are aligned and when they diverge. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 22:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

The divergence point between Croucher's fact and opinion is remarkably sudden and obvious in tonight's feature story. In the very next paragraph after describing this as a fake news website, he reports how it retracted dubious information, and that the editor is looking into the error. Removing fake news is directly counterproductive to the purpose explained in fake news website. Even if this discrepancy can be reasoned away, WP:YESPOV is clear about attributing opinions, rather than stating them in our real news voice. InedibleHulk (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Irrelevant that they once retracted an obvious embarrassment. And STILL, we use RS. I provided six in this thread. O3000 (talk) 01:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I just checked those six, and none directly call The Gateway Pundit "fake news" (and the NBC quote Galobtter shared comes closest). Two don't even contain that term. How do you figure they work for this? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

What, so synonyms don't count? You are edit-warring multiple articles to exclude info you don't like while repeatedly claiming that sources are not RS that have been accepted as RS for a decade. O3000 (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If we can let inferred opinions pass as facts, can we let the clear and unambiguous, widely-reported declaration that "NBC News is fake news" shape its lead? Do the hints of feelings we get from writers we Google outweigh the statements of a democratically-elected world leader, just because he plays a heel? And what synonyms do you suggest are close enough for this shitty site? InedibleHulk (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I realize that you believe Trump's pronouncements are more reliable than what WP considers RS; but, we have our own community standards. We don't believe everything politicians say. O3000 (talk) 02:15, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

When I ask you questions, they're not rhetorical. And when you dodge them, it's not helpful. I believe Trump's opinion to be clearly stated and thus possible to attribute (per policy) to him (as the opinion holder) if we were to include it as criticism in the NBC or CNN articles. Personally, I'm absolutely confident he's been caught in more lies than both outlets combined, but he's still technically an expert in American politics and is frequently cited by reputable publications.

To whom could we cite the opinion, carried in a reliable source, that The Gateway Pundit is a fake news website? It's a simple question and answering it honestly will go a long way toward sharing your preferred view in compliance with Wikipedia's rules. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I already listed six cites which you ignore. We do not need to "cite an opinion" when the preponderance of sources make a statement. And, we do not need to use exact wording. Indeed, we rarely do. And, I answered your questino honestly and dodged nothing. Please stop this WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior. O3000 (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I didn't ignore them. Anybody reading along can see I told you I "checked those six, and none directly call The Gateway Pundit 'fake news'". Then I asked you to suggest an adequate synonym for "fake news website" from them, so that we may attribute this opinion to someone (or even this fact, if you want to see it like that). Currently, the first sentence is blatant original research. I see "fringe website" and "far-right website", but those don't seem like synonyms to me, and I'm no stranger to the thesaurus. InedibleHulk (talk) 22:35, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Incredibly telling that not one of you has addressed central issue: the ambiguity around the term and its definition. This includes how you believe a reader who reads the first sentence of this article is going get an accurate understanding of the subject matter of the article. Until you address this issue, I will continue to fight for its removal from the lede. Stay on subject, and stop letting your (unconscious, I hope) bias dictate your editing. And let me give you a hint: there is no way to remove the ambiguity of the term, given it is thrown around in all media outlets to describe so-called opposition outlets. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

If no one else is willing to address the central issue, I suggest we escalate this to a dispute resolution. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 18:15, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

DRN rarely works with anything of this nature. You can start an RfC if you wish. O3000 (talk) 18:25, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

In the meantime, you may wish to explain whether or not "fake news website" (or reasonable synonym) is in the source currently tagged for not supporting it. I think it'd be best to get to the bottom of this ASAP. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:39, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2018

Really? "Far right" - "fake news" - I thought this was an encyclodedia, not an opinion rag. You should remove those editorial comments masquerading as objective truth at once. Unless you are calling the Huffington Post a "far left" "fake news" site. If you do not, you are showing your true colors as a left-wing propaganda site. ProudParent 21:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: These descriptions are sourced with references. Without any other references that disagree, they will be included. Discussion of the Huffington Post should take place at its page. DannyS712 (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

They were decorated with footnotes, but only one writer in one of those links described it as fake news. Shane Croucher. The rest just sort of implied it to some people, or are alleged without evidence to contain synonyms for "fake news" (see relevant section above). I've restored A Boar's version, per WP:YESPOV and removed the mere synomyn-flavoured decorations, per WP:V. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:29, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2018

The Gateway Pundit is identified as "fake news", effectively equating it to The Onion as per Wikipedia's definition. Although the Gateway Pundit has had its share of controversy, the Wikipedia page does not fairly portray the organization, exhibiting a clear bias. Ironically the page is locked for editing to prevent vandalism, despite the disparaging comments regarding Gateway Pundit. Please allow the organization an opportunity to correct the Wikipedia article as it appears they have been kept from doing so.

At the very least, the labelling as "fake news" should be removed. 99.244.244.241 (talk) 13:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

The Onion is satirical not fake, there is a distinction. Sources out there label the Gateway Pundit as a disseminator of fake news. MarkAQuinn (talk) 13:18, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Besides Shane Croucher? If so, cite those sources, not the ones which only suggest it to those already susceptible to believing it. These likewise (but more strongly) suggest Google, Twitter and Facebook are fake news websites bu virtue of disseminating the same sort of horseshit. Like The Gateway Pundit, these platforms are also "known for publishing falsehoods and spreading disinformation", but unlike this one we've singled out unfairly, their articles' editors deal with the practice in a dignified manner, without defining those companies for a single flaw they all intermittently exhibit. That's all I meant by this summary] if that wasn't clear enough. InedibleHulk (talk) 03:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Google, Twitter and Facebook are not news sites. Nice try at false equivalence and a red herring all rolled into one though. Volunteer Marek 05:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not "trying" anything. Google "where do people get their news" for a wide swath of stories like these. Fake news is hosted and distributed through these websites far more frequently than anywhere else on the Internet. And it generally stays there, unlike when The Gateway Pundit quickly retracts something. It's become so enormous and familiar a problem that some can't back up far enough to see it as it is, even when dealing directly in sources with headlines like "Google and Facebook help spread bad information after Las Vegas attack". That's not even an opponent writing that. InedibleHulk (talk) 06:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the lead “Fake news” description (BRD)

Concerning this diff - I reverted (to restore) the text and it was deleted again along with the source. I’m following BRD and bringing up the issue here because:

• The reason I reverted the text is that the term is used in the source.
• The source used has been identified by the community as a generally reliable souce
• There’s been a history of edit warring involving the reverting editor in which sourced material was repeatedly removed. I feel that consensus on the talk page would help lead to a more stable version of the article.
• The questions pertaining to the above are:
  • Should the subject of the article be described as a fake news web site?
  • Should the description be attributed or simply stated?
    

Pinging involved editor @It'sAllinthePhrasing: Many thanks Edaham (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek I'm pinging you because you were also involved in the above conversation and there haven't been replies to this thread for a few days. Edaham (talk) 06:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Can we get those involved.... especially @It'sAllinthePhrasing: back to the talk page.--Moxy (talk) 16:34, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

What's to discuss? [23],[24],[25],[26],[27],[28] O3000 (talk) 17:31, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Exactly. The content is unambiguously correct and properly sourced, so it should stay. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 March 2019

Currently, all Google search results from mobile devices for "Gateway Pundit" produce their company name, but no hyperlink to their website. Instead, a Wikipedia link is displayed, not the companies website. Since the search results data is coming from Wikipedia, can you please fix this configuration issue? No other media organizations appears to have this issue. These 3 screen shots below show the difference. Gateway Search Screenshot: https://ibb.co/MD629D2 Newsbusters.com Search Screenshot: https://ibb.co/sqX35GD WorldNetDailey.com Search Screenshot: https://ibb.co/JrcK15D

Also, can you please insert the company logo in the Infobox, or use a better Infobox, possibly "Organization". Logo is available here, from Gateway Pundits Youtube page: https://yt3.ggpht.com/a-/AAuE7mDaMZI-S-BSZ4vP0M0tX6zRu_SnsBIXemEA_A=s900-mo-c-c0xffffffff-rj-k-no

Regards, AZMedia 24.56.62.232 (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done @24.56.62.232: Added logo not sure about the issue with Google as the URL shows on desktop. The only difference I noticed between this article and WorldNetDaily was the URL for GP was missing from GP's Wikidata entry which I added. I would suggest give Google about 24 hrs and see if the URL shows up on mobile. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 19:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 March 2019

Please remove the entire 2nd sentence regarding "a Fake news website".

Describing TGP in the 2nd sentence as "Fake News Website" is not only inaccurate, some would say it borders on defamation. Only two sources, Newsweek and Mediabiasfactcheck(MBFC) have proclaimed TGP as "Fake News". Newsweek reporter Shane Croucher, who is based in London, used the term as a descriptor of TGP in a 2018 article. He's uses this term in numerous other articles as a catch all phrase to define organizations, those he disagrees with, and possibly competes against. Using this young (20's) reporters words, from one article, to define an entire organization is a stretch by any standard. He's states "I tailor my copy to serve its purpose".

MBFC references errors in 4 articles and 3 parts of stories over a 2+ year span as their basis for calling TGP "fake news". That's a pretty high bar considering there are often 15-30 per day, nearly 5,000 stories annually published by TGP. If this is the standard, then a review of mistakes over just the last 90 days would qualify most major media outlets as "Fake News" groups (Covington racist actions, Trump directed Cohen to lie, Trump to fire DHS Secretary, Smollett, etc.). There has been an unheard of level or error filled reporting by major media outlets, over 75 documented media missteps, just on the President (see Sharyl Attkisson list). TGP was flagged as "Fake News" for a mere half dozen.

Oddly, MBFC's review of TGP is very in depth compared to ALL other major news organizations. MBFC lists a "Reasoning" section, mentions lawsuits, proclaims TGP identified the wrong person in their Charlottesville story, and so on. No major news organization are given this same level of scrutiny in MBFC reviews. For instance, their ABC News review has no mention that Brian Ross incorrectly named Tea Party member James Holmes as the Colorado Theater shooter. In fact, there are "zero" wrong stories mentioned, no "Reasoning", and no lawsuits listed in any major media outlet reviews by MBFC.

By comparison, MBFC states CNN as "providing misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits". Yet CNN is not listed as "Fake News" in the review. MBFC states MSNBC "publishes misleading reports, omits reporting...some sources may be untrustworthy". Yet MSNBC is not listed as "Fake News" in the review. There are numerous other media organizations with these same recurring issues. Yet not one is listed as "Fake News". Conclusion: By their own stated definition MBFC describes Fake News as "the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence". Like most news organization TGP has made errors. They have willingly made corrections immediately or removed articles. Most major news organizations won't fix errors, unless pressured. TGP understands they are under more scrutiny than most news organizations simply because they cater to a niche news audience - conservatives. This by no means should allow them to be tagged and flagged as "Fake News". Please remove the entire 2nd sentence in the Wiki profile for The Gateway Pundit.

Regards, AZMedia 24.56.62.232 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done: [29][30][31][32][33] O3000 (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent edit

I reverted the recent changes pending discussion; I'm preserving the material here by providing this link. First, it removed the word "fringe" from the lead. Then there were additions that appear unneeded, such as the inspiration for starting the site, or the impact on Trump's election. I'm happy to discuss further. --K.e.coffman (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Wiki editors showing their true colors here yet again, making it all but impossible to assume bad faith. The onus is on you to explain each of your reverts in detail. This wholesale slash and burn is unacceptable. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please see this query on your Talk page. --K.e.coffman (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Please stay on subject and address your "bold" reverts. Your desire to remove reliably sourced, relevant content on this page is extremely troubling. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 21:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Since you'd rather not engage on your Talk page, I'll ask here: do you have WP:COI when it comes to the subject of this article? K.e.coffman (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I suggest you stay on topic and address your unsubstantiated edits, especially given your lack of participation on this page. When will you be providing your detailed reasoning for each of the reverts? It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 21:32, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't want to have to argue each of your reverts in piecemeal fashion. That is unfair to me and other editors who would like a chance to immediately push back against your multiple unsubstantiated changes. Please address all your reverts in one fell swoop so we can continue multiple discussions at the same time and attempt to conclude all in reasonably expeditious fashion. Thank you. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 21:51, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

That is unreasonable and in fact disruptive. You are pressing the changes, so you need to justify them. You don’t get to demand that everyone argue on your terms. K.e. explained their position on the Trump influence issue. If you don’t respond then it seems you’ve conceded the issue. I will leave my concerns about your conduct in this dispute on your user talk. —Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

So it's reasonable to revert multiple, unrelated (and reliably sourced) additions and only explain some of the changes in moderate detail? What am I missing here? You can't come to "legal" conclusions about my additions and then put the burden of proof on me. I need to know why the content was removed before I defend why I think it should stay. The reason I added it in the first place was because I believed it was (1) reliably sourced and (2) highly relevant to the page. Assuming you would presume my good faith (which you should do I hear), what else would I need to do to prove my prima facie case? I shouldn't have to defend myself on the talk page every time I want to add something. Nothing would ever get done on Wikipedia then. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 23:45, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

I reverted the edits because I did not consider them to be an improvement. Below are more details. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Fringe and conservative

One of the edits removed the word "fringe" as WP:LABEL. LABEL does not apply when multiple RS commonly and consistently describe something as "fringe". Samples:

• The Florida school shooting is not fading from headlines (Washington Post-Feb 20, 2018) The @TrumpSuperPAC Twitter account, which counts Sean Hannity and former Trump spokesmen Katrina Pierson and Anthony Scaramucci among its 65,000 followers, tweeted that the students “seem coached,” echoing a claim by the Gateway Pundit, a fringe blog granted a White House press credential ...
• 'Your brain is not functioning': Jimmy Kimmel rips Parkland ... (Washington Post-Feb 22, 2018) Some right-wing sites and figures have suggested that the teenagers are actors posing as grieving students, or that people from the left fed them talking points. One student, David Hogg, 17, became a target after he said that his father is a retired FBI agent. By Monday, the fringe website Gateway Pundit had ...
• “Give Me a Break”: How the Far Right Is Smearing School-Shooting ... (Vanity Fair-Feb 21, 2018) “The wonderful minds behind the Women's March and a number of other far-left, hashtag-resist groups have been working with these kids,” Lucian Wintrich, the White House correspondent for the fringe-right Gateway Pundit, told me, defending an article he wrote accusing the Parkland students of being ...
• Drama erupts at CPAC after panel told to drop speaker who attacked ... (CNNMoney-Feb 21, 2018) Hoft, the founder of the right-wing fringe website The Gateway Pundit, courted controversy earlier this week after his website attacked David Hogg, a student survivor of the Florida school shooting

K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with K.e., this is well-sourced and appropriate material, no reason to exclude based on WP:LABEL. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok leaving "fringe" in, but as we're on the topic of the first sentence, we should also discuss why my recent addition of "conservative" was removed recently. Seems very descriptive, above and beyond "far-right." Thoughts? It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 00:18, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

No, far-right is a sub-set of conservatism. Far-right is far more descriptive than "conservative" in this instance, and there is abundant sourcing to justify the term for GP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:52, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Point taken. But I don't think your distinction is common knowledge to the layman. A typical reader might read "far-right" to mean authoritarian-bordering-on-fascist, rather than merely on the far right of the conservative-liberal spectrum (which in our country doesn't yet include fascism or communism on either side (yet)). And not disagreeing with sourcing volume. Given we have a reliable source for "conservative," I think the best way forward is "far-right conservative", as long as we include citations after each word so not as to imply that it was sourced as one term. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 01:12, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

We link to far-right politics for those who want to familiarize themselves with the concept. "Far-right conservative" is nonsensical and strikes me as an attempt to introduce WP:WEASEL. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that would be undue / weasel. Note how the snippets I offered describe the outles as "fringe-right" and "right-wing fringe". "Conservative" is far less common. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:25, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What's nonsensical is saying "far-right is a sub-set (sic) of conservatism" and then saying "far-right conservative" is nonsensical. Do we need to make a venn diagram for visualization? E.g., let's take a pile of apples. Some are red, some are green. The apples that are red are ... red apples!!! Adding insult to injury, the term "right-wing fringe" works the same way "far-right conservative" does. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 01:43, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• Far-right is not a subset of conservative, and so conservative should be restored. There are far-right ideologies such as nationalism and fascism that are distinct from conservatism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Origins story

Another edit that I reverted was an addition of the origin story for the founding of the blog. I considered it to be undue intricate detail. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I wholly disagree. Take Media_Matters_for_America and their "Founding" header. Different details were included I'll admit, but details no less. And my additions a mere few lines, not intricate detail. TGP's founding is less widely written about, so I think it best to include what's out there for the curious reader. In addition, I've noticed other editors have spoken to the length of this page (or lack thereof), so I would surmise that general consensus would (and should) be that it's best not to be excessively weary of growing the page in too many directions just yet. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 00:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree with It's All in the Phrasing. This is based on a independent source and appears to be noteworthy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:40, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

"Influence on Donald Trump victory"

Source does not support the content as it appeared in the edit:

• Influence on Donald Trump victory: The Gateway Pundit is credited as being one of the pro-Trump media outlets responsible for promoting both the conservative agenda and the media's broader agenda at large during the 2016 presidential campaign. this link

CJR says:

When we map media sources this way, we see that Breitbart became the center of a distinct right-wing media ecosystem, surrounded by Fox News, the Daily Caller, the Gateway Pundit, the Washington Examiner, Infowars, Conservative Treehouse, and Truthfeed.

The edit appears to have been original research. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:41, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

CJR also says:

This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have not only successfully set the agenda for the conservative media sphere, but also strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton.

Also, content was removed that was sourced from Fig. 2 ranking the most frequently shared media sources. This seems like an incredibly relevant fact playing into the influence of TGP during the election. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 00:29, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The CJR analysis of the conservative media landscape and GP's status in it is noteworthy and should be included in the article. The language must however reflect the content of the CJR analysis. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:56, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

• I do not think this material satisfies our verifiability standard. Content must be stated expressly by a reliable source, and this isn't. I don't see anything explicit in this (interesting) source that warrants inclusion in this article. All it says is that The Gateway Pundit was one of several media sources that were part of a distinct right-wing media ecosystem. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:46, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

What specifically regarding verifiability worries you? I'm intrigued to hear why the Columbia Journalism Review shouldn't be allowed to be cited on Wikipedia. Also, you're not distilling the essence of the study in any fair manner. It's not that a right-wing media ecosystem exists, and for you to suggest that a study is necessary to make this point is a distortion and misreading. And why do I have to repeat quotations of content to make an obvious point yet again? "This pro-Trump media sphere appears to have ... strongly influenced the broader media agenda, in particular coverage of Hillary Clinton." Please explain what's not noteworthy about this. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 21:19, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The CJR article is most certainly reliable. It's just that we can only include what it says, not what it doesn't say. It's about the pro-Trump media sphere, not about The Gateway Pundit. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

ONUS

In general, reliably cited material is still subject to WP:ONUS. In one example, the source was not used appropriately to begin with. In another, sourced material ("fringe") was inappropriately removed. The edits were problematic and I reverted them. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

I acknowledge the tenets of WP:ONUS, but that doesn't take away from the fact that in order to achieve consensus to include material, there first needs to be a dispute. Just reverting content with little reasoning behind doesn't rise to the level of "dispute" in my book. If that were the case, an editor could go around Wikipedia and just revert everything it disagreed without explanation and force every good faith editor to have to defend itself for any innocuous addition. Now that you've explained why you removed the content (or at least most of your removals), we can have a productive discussion. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 00:37, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

The dispute is that the additions / deletions failed WP:WEIGHT; WP:NOR, and WP:NPOV. Hence I removed them. The arguments are not convincing so far. The onus is on the editor wishing to change the material to achieve consensus. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:41, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

Ex post facto, thanks for explaining. It'sAllinthePhrasing (talk) 00:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

ACA and health problems

@It'sAllinthePhrasing: Jim Hoft's health problems in 2013 are not directly related to TGP. The #Jim_Hoft section shouldn't be some ersatz-BLP; you could convert Jim Hoft to a BLP if he's generally notable (not only as founder and editor of TGP). –84.46.52.169 (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

One year later I still think that the health issues in #Jim Hoft are off topic. If you disagree you could use {{Wikiproject banner shell|blpo=yes|1=…}} or similar. –84.46.52.48 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Can someone add archiving?

No need to keep yrs-old discussions. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Especially no need to show various IPv6 + IPv4 by another ISP in Hamburg used by me in 2017 in the first section, let alone my weird "let's try NPOV + conservative, because notability is given" considerations. –84.46.52.251 (talk) 20:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Resolved

 – archive bot worked. –84.46.53.30 (talk) 13:40, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Citation to deprecated source

On 1 March 2020, Objective3000 reverted my edit, thereby restoring a citation that links to a deprecated source—The Gateway Pundit. In the edit summary, Objective3000 asserted that the source "can be used in an article about itself" and linked to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. In relevant part, that section reads:

The primary exception to deprecation is that deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves (WP:ABOUTSELF).

However, the disputed reference in this instance meets neither of those exceptions. It's a story by Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit′s founder, headlined "Bad Blood: Judge Kavanaugh's Mother Presided Over Far Left Accuser's Parents' Home Foreclosure (UPDATED)". Hoft's story does not discuss The Gateway Pundit, nor does he therein describe his own viewpoint or provide other information about the site itself.

Accordingly, I request consensus to delete this reference to a deprecated source. NedFausa (talk) 15:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, we say that the article was false. That is, we are not using the cite to verify a fact stated in the article. Instead, we are only using the cite to show that the false article exists. We don't need to provide this as we have a cite stating the article existed and made a false claim; but it is of use to the reader to see the article for themselves. O3000 (talk) 16:05, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

The "far-right" and "right-wing" description is reliably sourced

One user recently reverted text[34] that I added which (1) described GP as a "far-right" and "right-wing" website. The reliable sources were three: CNN, philly.com and globalnews.ca. "Far-right" and "right-wing" are far more precise than "conservative", which encompasses everything from batshit insane far-right cooks to moderate Mitt Romney types. (2) Text that elaborated on GP's promotion of a falsehood regarding the Las Vegas shooting. The text should be restored. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:16, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

CNN - a reliable source on an article discussing something right of center? If you are going to play that game then I will start using Fox News as source for the Hilary article. T.Nuvolari (talk) 11:43, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Fox News is a source on the Hilary article. Did you know you were responding to an twenty month old edit? O3000 (talk) 11:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

More sources: "Far-right"[35][36]. "Right-wing"[37][38][39][40]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any discussion on the talk page where "conservative" was the agreed-upon language (this is what the editor who reverted me claimed). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

If you insist on not conservative the Wiki-project here can be removed, and the wikilinked "conservative" in the infobox is wrong. Please keep it consistent, or ignore it if you find the TGP too disgusting for honest NPOV attempts. –2.247.244.161 (talk) 07:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Unless you went to the company site itself to create an official description then it is not reliable source. Anything else can be created under a controversy tab. I will contact gateway to make sure they take all appropriate measures with Wikipedia do to this unethical vandalism if somebody who has the mental acuity of a fruit fly Rfrf101 (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Biases in the article

They are rampant. WP cites a NPOV policy (neutral point of view), and yet calling the website "far-right and pro-Trump" shows extreme bias, and is anything but a neutral point of view. All this writer did was to add one word: "unapologetically", and it was reverted right away not once, but twice. If you're going to call GP a far-right website, you should (but you won't) call yourself (WP) unapologetically far-left, and there's really nothing wrong with being biased one way or another, as long as you're up-front about it, it's a free world. "Unapologetic" is a mere adjective, nothing more; there are numerous other adjectives that this writer does not object to, and this writer merely wishes to have the one adjective added, for qualification of the numerous other biases existent in the body of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Gateway_Pundit&type=revision&diff=850934288&oldid=850934205 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c56:6e00:56c:0:196e:76b9:4cce (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2018‎

I don't understand. If GP doesn't apologize for being far-right and pro-Trump, then why are you objecting to that content? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:08, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I don't object to the content, but admins seem to object to the word "unapologetic", as it was removed in less than 2 minutes, twice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c56:6e00:56c:0:196e:76b9:4cce (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2018‎

Everything in Wikipedia must be verifiable. Do you have a reliable source saying that GP is unapologetic? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

The reliable source would be the website itself; they don't seem to care that anybody thinks they're biased

Where's your source? Right now this seems like an WP:OR. Sdmarathe (talk) 04:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

http://thegatewaypundit.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C56:6E00:56C:0:196E:76B9:4CCE (talk) 05:03, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Can you please point us to where it says the organization is unapologetically far-right and pro-Trump? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with this. the bias needs to be stopped. Mark Levin even said that Wikipedia is fraudulent. --2600:1017:B006:BCD3:20AD:3214:9B9E:42A1 (talk) 11:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Levin? Seriously? He is not a RS for anything but his own opinions, certainly not for facts. -- BullRangifer (talk) 15:15, 23 August 2019 (UTC)

Mark Levin is every bit as reliable as anyone writing in the WP NYT on CNN or MSNBC etc. Your bias is the reason Wikipedia has gone from a useful resource to an agenda driven leftist organization. SaxxonFeud (talk) 17:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Gateway Pundit whining about its own Wikipedia page

GP published this diatribe[41] whining about this Wikipedia page. Apparently, we have "smeared" a "trusted" website such as GP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)]

No surprise. The writer is The Devil's Advocate and his explanation of his ban is false.Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-06/Arbitration report#The_Devil's_Advocate_banned I was involved in that decision. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, you all sound very NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8360:8FC0:6104:D486:A30:E5D2 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Smearing can go both ways. Rsb97080 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Not reliable source

No fool in their right mind would use someone else's opinion column to describe an official company. Common practice is to go to the site itself and use their about description. Anything else can go under controversy and I will continue to remove everything you do that comes and conflict with ethical standards for an encyclopedia. Rfrf101 (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Rfrf101: It is not common practice on Wikipedia to "go to the site itself and use their about description". We rely on reliable third party sources, because primary sources have a conflict of interest and are not likely to be objective about themselves. This applies to all articles on Wikipedia, not just The Gateway Pundit. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

@Bennv3771: I've blocked them indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. Their edit summaries only demonstrate that. Why anyone would think that the subjects of an article should control the article in an encyclopedia is beyond me. But then people really believe that Covid19 is a hoax, so... Doug Weller talk 09:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Then why does the Media Matters for America Wikipedia page cut and paste the description of that organization directly from the Media Matters website? SaxxonFeud (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

You'll need to ask that on its talk page. WP:OTHERCONTENT We avoid using a subject's self-description. Otherwise, the Mafia would be a social club and all terrorists would be freedom fighters. O3000 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

What do you then see as an Objective source, because even as an European I know CNN & Newsweek are completely Left-wing. It would be better if you use CNN & Newsweek "claimed" The Gateway Pundit is a fake-news website. Also the English wiki community (how? by vote? it just links to a website that seems to like the denomination) has decided to call something "fake". How is this substantial or even allowed? I'm sorry, but this is the reason the professors hate wiki. The examples of fake news are also happening with other news agencies (f.e. CNN with the Covington students, the Jussie Smollet-case or the noose at Nascar) therefore if you call that proof, we have to have the same denomination at their pages. And I can keep going for hours. This page just seems to be a personal opinion of one of the contributors.

It does not matter what you as a European "know". Our article CNN does not say anything like that because there are no reliable sources saying it. But if someone is right-wing, every centrist outlet is "left-wing"; maybe that is the reason for your perception. --Hob Gadling (talk) 15:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Twitter suspends ‘Gateway Pundit’ Jim Hoft

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajdellinger/2021/02/06/twitter-suspends-gateway-pundit-jim-hoft/?ss=consumertech&sh=40dbdb223653 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.12.225.19 (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

We can't use this one, since it was written by a Forbes.com non-staff contributor (RSP entry), which is not considered a reliable source. However, it looks like The Hill (RSP entry) covered the event, and I'll switch to citing that. — Newslinger talk 06:26, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

Change the statement from; "The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right[8] news and opinion website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories."

To read; "The Gateway Pundit is an American news-based media website that presents the news without bias. Unlike far-left media outlets like NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and others that choose to manipulate their audiences in order to advance their Marxist agenda, The Gateway Pundit is known for publishing the truth and allowing their readers to decide." Donarcher (talk) 14:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: Please see WP:NPOV. Jack Frost (talk) 14:54, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Well, the article clearly violates the neutrality policy already, so leaving it as-is yields the same result. Unless Wikipedia now has a very warped definition of neutrality. Note: I'll only respond to constructive remarks; fallacious arguments (including insults and cognitive dissonance) will be ignored. Lee Carré (talk) 22:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

The consensus of high-quality academic sources is that The Gateway Pundit is a far-right fake news website. Please see Special:Permalink/1009445889 § cite note-far-right-2 and Special:Permalink/1009445889 § cite note-fake news-1. Neutrality on Wikipedia entails representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic, and the cited academic sources agree that far-right and fake news website are accurate descriptors for The Gateway Pundit. — Newslinger talk 23:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

The Gateway Pundit is not a fake news site. Its Wiki page appears to have been edited by someone who is afraid of the truth. This needs to be edited out. Ghoppr71 (talk) 11:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: This prose is very well sourced. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 June 2021

Please remove anything referring "The Gateway Pundit" as anything relating to, but not limited to: Hoaxes, falsehoods, fake news, far-right, mis/disinformation. Those listed are in and of itself are false and is subjective opinion rather than objective, provable fact. Shredhead55 (talk) 19:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Please examine the three footnotes in the first paragraph of the article. soibangla (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 June 2021

Please change "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website" to "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] news website". "Fake news" is a meaningless political label and shouldn't be used by any side. All the sources that are cited for its designation as "fake" are exclusively left and far-left that themselves were periodically accused of being fake news by prominent political figures in the US and abroad. Please don't cave to biased editors, they don't have a monopoly on assigning political labels as they please. Prtsn2021 (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2021

2601:780:8201:BDA0:942C:C563:5BCC:756E (talk) 05:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Isi96 User edited this page and that user is now deleted? This page is false

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Living Concrete (talk) 05:52, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2021

The Gate way Pundit is not fake news, Who ever protect this script is not have a truthful opinion and should be re edited Dizzydaddy (talk) 20:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Obvious Bias In Article

WP:FORUM and WP:TALK violation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
100% fake media bias towards GP, one of the better sources of real news and events happening in world of politics. whoever disagrees is a leftist hack. The article for this website opens as follows "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[21]" Whether it is or is not "Fake News" is up to the reader, not the writer, as is what the site is "known for". Suggest a removal of these loaded terms, especially considering they make up the entirety of an opening sentence. Reliable sources effectively unanimously describe the site as "fake news." The term is an accurate description of the site, and therefore will not be removed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2021 (UTC) I disagree. Specifically labeling the site "fake news" is showing a bias. I just looked at the site, and a quick glance doesn't show anything obviously false. I'm not saying that there's nothing false there, since I don't ever visit that site and I have no desire to dig through it, but again, obvious bias. -- Erik Siers (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC) It is supported by five references soibangla (talk) 16:14, 6 July 2021 (UTC) The first reference I checked failed to support the assertion. In fact, its only mention of The Gateway Pundit said it is diminishing in engagement ... something ambiguous but actually tending toward the opposite of what is claimed here. However, I will not waste my time editing this nonsense. You Leftist editors may think you are winning when people like me drop out of this game, but in fact you have already lost. And Wikipedia loses too, when its credibility is shredded by partisan articles like this one. To Wikipedia I say, borrowing the parlance of my kids, "You do you". Taquito1 (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC) It's obvious that they're politically bias towards thr website. If you look into the users history if revolves around "right wing conspiracies." This page needs to be accurately edited. Xchrisjbx (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC) All 5 references are from books, or short papers a person wrote - meaning it's just his or her opinion in those sources - you know what they say about opinions right? Everyone has one. But since this is Wikipedia and it's ran by people with a left wing agenda as even it's co-founder Larry Sanger has said, and tells people to avoid this place due to that, it's not a surprise to see such a childish and NOT fact driven smear as the first sentence about a right leaning website. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:7110:1104:8AD0:3000 (talk) Please read WP:V and WP:AGF. Llll5032 (talk) 17:45, 27 September 2021 (UTC) Some of these Wikipedia propaganda articles are beyond pathetic and into the realm of laughable self-embarrassment and self-parody. This is Baghdad Bob level of stuff. Lord Haw-Haw had far more finesse. Gateway Pundit is a biased news site, like virtually every other news site out there; it continually gets a massive amount of traffic and this article's pitiful and grossly crass little insinuation of "fake news" will lead many people to conclude the opposite and to rail even more against the mendacity and hypocrisy of legacy corporate media such as CNN, the NY Times, and the rest of the now widely untrusted "reliable sources." The lopsided and warped little Wikilawyers love to pontificate about "keeping good faith," and those same individuals crouch over their keyboards and submit this embarrassment of an article. But as the commenter above says, you do you. MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 01:22, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Well, we're sorry you feel that way, but... The Gateway Pundit was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site is unacceptable as a source. It is unreliable for statements of fact, and given to publishing hoax articles and reporting conspiracy theories as fact.[42] soibangla (talk) 01:29, 20 October 2021 (UTC) Your circular-logical reply only reinforces the tone-deafness, pretension, and glibness in this hermetically sealed "wiki" echo-chamber. It's a wonder you can breathe under such sealed-off, reality-denying, solely self-affirming conditions -- if you'll pardon the vulgar but apt expression, circle-jerk conditions. It's not only myself that "feels that way"; the lack of clout, lack of veracity, and lack of prestige of Wikipedia, are pretty much a matter of record -- almost entirely due to jealous gatekeeping and sophomoric, pointed propaganda from heavily leftward-leaning agendists who lack even rudimentary subtlety and convey zero authority or credibility. This glaringly lame article would be exhibit #4095 of 55000. But don't take my word for it. In any case, "you do you." MacheathWasABadBadMan (talk) 02:37, 20 October 2021 (UTC) MacheathWasABadBadMan: WP:FOC, WP:AGF, WP:V and WP:SOAP. Llll5032 (talk) 02:44, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 July 2021

The Gateway Pundit is a reputable conservative news source not far right fake news !! 67.21.191.87 (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:42, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

It's fairly clear mate, the user is espousing the opinion that the article as listed is biased instead of being neutral as preferred within wikipedia parlance. IE, the editor's political preferences are showing, instead of maintaining neutrality as they should.2605:A601:A880:8C00:A8D1:4226:D25D:611B (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

This page is not espousing opinions but for making suggestions about improving the article. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 January 2022

Change "fake news" to "news". Whether you agree with their reporting or not, this is defamatory. 24.170.246.242 (talk) 17:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Right now on GP: "Breaking: Twitter Suspends Popular Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene – After She Asked AOC to Apologize for Smearing Governor Ron DeSantis." Is that why MTG was banned, as GP would like readers to believe? Of course not, it was "for repeated violations of our COVID-19 misinformation policy." GP is trash. soibangla (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

It is an utter disgrace that you are calling The Gateway Pundit "fake news".

bad troll is bad Dronebogus (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

No wonder nobody trusts Wikipedia anymore, and you founder is extremely disappointed in what you have become. This is why Wikipedia is viewed as a joke. I was so disappointed with this entry that I signed up and had to make this comment. You "minders" are the problem. When free speech is restricted, everybody suffers. Why don't you head over to North Korea or China? This is how they operate. Nobody wins with censorship. H60ace (talk) 21:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC) Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". Reliable sources overwhelmingly describe The Gateway Pundit as a fake news website that publishes falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories. The wording in this article is consistent with the cited reliable sources. It would be non-neutral to whitewash The Gateway Pundit's history to improve its appearance. The Gateway Pundit continues to post falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories on its website, so your allegations of "censorship" are unfounded. — Newslinger talk 07:02, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

you can't call it a "fake news" website. Wiki loses credibility with that sort of hyperbole

bad troll is bad Dronebogus (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

you can't call it a "fake news" website. Wiki loses credibility with that sort of hyperbole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.229.88 (talk) 01:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC) We can and do because they do publish fake news and conspiracy theories, and reliable sources document it. We would lose credibility if we failed to tell the truth and lied to readers like you. Now you know the facts and will hopefully stop trusting TGP. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 01:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC) The sources you cite are not altogether reliable. The fact that the article names TGP as "fake news" illuminates the bias and the defense of it doubles down on the bias. Remove the "fake news" reference if you have any moral fortitude whatsoever. 65.59.242.50 (talk) 18:47, 4 July 2022 (UTC) So what sources do you consider reliable? Give some examples (URLs) that specifically deal with TGP. What do they say about it? -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 19:55, 4 July 2022 (UTC) You don't call the New York Times a "fake news" website even though there have been many documented far-left fake news articles published there. This reeks of bias and only further craters this website's claimed credibility. Pyrojohn1 (talk) 14:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC) Reliable sources do not describe the NYTs as a fake news site because they do not knowingly publish fake news. All media make errors but reliable sources apologize and self-correct. By contrast, TGP consistently publishes erroneous and false information, so RS describe them as a fake news website, and we are required to document what RS say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:52, 11 July 2022 (UTC) please show one of the "many documented far-left fake news articles published there" soibangla (talk) 18:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC) The fact that its a far-right fake news site has been backed up by many reliable sources. So, let's keep that description. Hemanth Nalluri 11 (talk) 20:55, 11 July 2022 (UTC) This is not a far-right website. -HistoryGuy94 (talk) 22:05, 3 August 2022 (UTC) At least 14 reliable sources, including multiple high-quality academic sources, confirm that The Gateway Pundit is a "far-right" website; see Special:Permalink/1107616538#cite_note-far-right-2 for details. Additionally, at least 9 reliable sources, including multiple high-quality academic sources, confirm that The Gateway Pundit is a "fake news website"; see the citations at Special:Permalink/1107616538#cite_note-fake_news-1. — Newslinger talk 07:07, 2 September 2022 (UTC) The above argument conflates WP:Reliable with the logical fallacy of: Argument from authority. Please check them out to clear up this disagreement. It is not our job as editors to cherry pick references to craft the "one true truth." It doesn't exist. Our job is to find the various viewpoints, source them and we're done. Pissing contests like above are pointless. Lexlex (talk) 12:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2022

After researching The Gateway Pundit I have discovered they are a legitimate news outlet. Not a fake news outlet. It is not far right. Edits need to be made to show the facts. The current description reads as slander and not truthful. Truthprotectr (talk) 10:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Truth Truthprotectr (talk) 10:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

If you have a specific change which you think should be made to the article, then (1) say exactly what the change is, that is to say give the exact text which you think should be put into the article, and (2) tell us what reliable sources support that change. Obviously we can't accept information on no better basis than that someone who has chosen to create a Wikipedia account says so, because anyone can create a Wikipedia account and use it to make any claim they like. JBW (talk) 10:48, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

I would add the following to the section on Jim Hoft, right after the mention of how he came out as gay after the night club shooting:

Hoft is married to Jezreel Morano, a native of the Phillipines who emigrated to the United States to be with Hoft. The two men met in 2016 and married in 2019.

Source: https://www.laduenews.com/style/weddings/made-for-each-other-james-hoft-and-jezreel-morano/article_5a85320a-d532-5e36-b254-7de565ac0aea.html 45.72.233.147 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Fake News NPOV

Quite absurd to call The Gateway Pundit a "fake news website". The Gateway Pundit has a better track record of reporting accurate news than the Washington Post or the New York Times. Also the label "far-right" is not accurate, its bias is normal moderate center-right (as in the sense of how center-right was understood only 20 years ago).

Please correct this, this is a violation of the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. Der Eberswalder (talk) 13:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

See the FAQ near the top of this page. O3000, Ret. (talk) 13:52, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

It is "sourced reliably" by biased sources, which are in essence fake news sources themselves, based on demonstrably false arguments by biased and dishonest scholars. This is nothing more than an Argument from authority fallacy. Der Eberswalder (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

If you don't like what Wikipedia has determined are reliable sources, debate it at WP:RSN. Meanwhile, we use reliable sources. O3000, Ret. (talk) 14:09, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Cannot edit the page

Unhelpful rant and personal attacks
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Sorry but Wikipedia should be neutral, this page is clearly biased toward radical left wing talking point and in violation of NPOV, power administrators are ruining the website 2600:1700:3D94:40:4011:4FB3:657E:1D96 (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC) You need to identify specific sentences that you believe are in error, propose specific wording changes, and identify specific reliable sources that verify those changes. Vague griping accomplishes nothing. Cullen328 (talk) 22:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC) Don’t lie like that, you know full well what is wrong with this article, this is not at all what Wikipedia should be, unlock it, do the right thing 2600:1700:3D94:40:4054:6151:B077:2B91 (talk) 03:19, 29 April 2023 (UTC) I am not lying. Do not tell me what you think I "know full well" because you are wrong about that, and you are not a mind reader. I am accurately describing the processes that result in changes to Wikipedia articles. If you are unwilling to do the work that I described, then you will have no influence on this article. As for unlocking the article, there is a long history of vandalism, so that is unlikely to happen anytime soon. Cullen328 (talk) 06:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC) I don’t have to be a mind reader to see what is wrong with this page. If you’re unwilling to respect Wikipedias NPOV guiding principles then I have no cause to respect you as an administrator; I cannot help but conclude that you must be lying about it, any reasonable person can see the bias in this page, Do you really not see anything wrong with the bias in this article? You don’t believe that this tactic of locking articles into left wing propaganda caricatures isn’t bad for Wikipedia? Be honest, Unlock the page, allow people to make their own judgments as Wikipedia was meant to be. 2600:1700:3D94:40:C9C8:F136:9A29:F463 (talk) 14:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

ERIC

Gateway Pundit started the ERIC conspiracy; See "Up First" podcast and NPR report. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F89C:8F5C:A581:52F4 (talk) 12:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2023

I think you mean CNN

216.114.124.40 (talk) 12:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 16:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Fairness, objectivity and accuracy

First sentence is a matter of opinion. Should read The Gateway Pundit is a far right news website considered by some readers to be fake news. It has been accused by some of perpetrating hoaxes, but this allegation is not proven. 97.73.100.64 (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

As said in the FAQ near the top of this page, the "fake news website" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced. O3000, Ret. (talk) 16:17, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

Blatant libel and slander of a credible news source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A270:2FF0:2525:850:5EFC:8D0 (talk) 16:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

It is not "libel and slander" to describe The Gateway Pundit as a fake news website when this descriptor is thoroughly supported by reliable sources cited in the article, including high-quality academic sources. If you find any reliable sources that describe The Gateway Pundit as a credible news source, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 04:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)