Talk:Matt Drudge/Archive 1

News Week
"Drudge's most famous achievement, the breaking of the Monica Lewinsky story, offended editors because by publishing details of the story, Drudge essentially made an editorial decision that overrode Newsweek's (which was sitting on the story)."

I fail to see why this is criticism. It's irrelevant that his editorial decision overrode Newsweek. Fact is he broke the story first. I see this more of his finest hour than something which should be ashmed about. Can anyone edit it to make it a more neutral point of view?

Drudge Retort
I still maintain that the Drudge Retort is not an educational site related to the Drudge Report. I do not believe the link belongs on this page. Could someone please help me understand/explain to me why it does? Any light one can shed on the matter would be appreciated. Zenosparadox 04:11, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC) It's a popular parody of the site which is anti-white and anti-Christian.

Can someone cite the # of hits on average that the retort gets, giving it 'popular' enough status to be on Matt Drudge's Wiki?

Current Form
I've been a longtime observer (and less frequent editor) of Wiki and this article, in its current form (2/19/05), is an excellent example of a well-written, fair Wiki collaboration. With all the negativity that is constantly thrown around on these pages, I thought I'd actually offer something positive. (DJ 19 Feb 2005)

Journalist nor a muckraker
For accuracy's sake: Matt Drudge is neither a journalist nor a muckraker. This article points out the judge's determination that Drudge isn't a journalist. The term "muckraker" has traditionally been ascribed to journalist's not involved in gossip mongering, but in the venerable tradition of exposing real corruption (see the Wikipedia entry on muckraking).

Drudge might more accurately be described as a "yellow journalist" if he has to be described as a journalist at all.

For more on yellow journalism: http://www.pbs.org/crucible/frames/_journalism.html

Or Wikipedia's entry: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yellow_journalism

Robert Stribley


 * I would tend to agree that Drudge is more properly an anthologist of the news than a journalist, since he very, very rarely does his own reporting. Perhaps he should be called an editor? Bds yahoo 13:51, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I, personally, get an extreamly negative vibe from the word "muckraker", possibly due to not haveing previously encoutered the american useage. Wether or not that negative conotation is intended, it does seem overly POV. Iainscott 13:54, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I agree, it does seem biased. However, the dictionary definitions do not seem to have such a bias, and it may just be our own historical bias (were he called a yellow journalist it may be more clear cut.  Furthermore, the link of muckraker does not seem to carry a negative connotation, further clouding the issue. zenosparadox. 00:03, 05 Dec 2004

--

So now a judge decides who is a journalist? One has to use critical thinking and research when reading political wiki articles. If someone actually went to Drudge's website, they'd see that there are plenty of articles linked that are no where near the side of conservatives. In this case, though, the content was compressed to make the website appear as a White House organ.


 * You might want to look at the list of columnists to whom Drudge links, my friend. Don't believe him when he says he's a libertarian.  That's just fancy talk for a hard-line conservative who wants to appear independent.  Notice that he has been running the same, non-newsworthy Democrat-bashing articles every day of the convention.  To listen to Drudge spin it, you would think not a single interesting thing has been said at this convention.  Even if I were conservative, favorable to his views, I'd be offended by this insult to my intelligence, this implication that I can't remain a conservative without hearing only negative news about the Democrats. Bds yahoo 14:04, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Just popping to say that libertarianism is not centrism, it is a hybrid of conservativism and liberalism. As one can see, Drudge is clearly conservative on many issues (abortion, stem-cell research, tax cuts, size of government), while liberal on some others (privacy, Patriot Act, free speech, role of police intrusions, pornography, regulation of the Internet), fairly moderate on some others (war in Iraq, (see [www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/925929/posts])), and so on. See Drudge's Playboy interview, where he states that "I am a libertarian, not trusting any of the (liberals or conservatives)."


 * Now that support for the War in Iraq is at an all-time low, he is helping to smear anti-war protester Cindy Sheehan. He is not "moderate" on Iraq. 68.110.199.122 13:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)


 * All that having been said, I'd put Drudge as a libertarian-leaning conservative, or a conservative-leaning libertarian. His strong pro-life tendancies usually don't fit in with the philosophy of libertarianism, though they can (see Libertarian perspectives on abortion for a good perspective on this). The article does a good job of pointing out Drudge's views vs. the views of many others, except for this: "Drudge's politics are unabashedly conservative." This should be changed to "By many, Drudge's politics are considered extremely conservative," or something like that. Since people obviously disagree about this, it is POV to say what the article currently says. -- 67.20.29.3 01:48, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * If people are going to add to the article, add. But if people plan to delete whole paragraphs, they need to come here to discuss it, not to announce it.  Wikipedia is a community effort.  Unless it is preceded by a discussion here, I am going to revert any deletion made on a unilateral basis, until a SysOp steps in and tells me to back off. Bds yahoo 20:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * I proposed adding the words "by many" to the article, instead of stating "Drudge's politics are unabashedly conservative" as mere fact. I am adding two words to the article to make it more NPOV. If we really need to have votes on the addition of two words, then so be it; I hope it does not have to come to that. -- 67.20.29.3 22:12, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * You are right, I am wrong. Your edit was an innocent bystander of my reverting a different, frivolous deletion.  Sorry about that. Bds yahoo 19:41, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * You might want to look at the list of columnists to whom Drudge links,
 * Hmmm... let me see. "Eleanor Clift". "Maureen Dowd".  "Molly Ivins".  "Village Voice" "ABC" "CBS" "CNN". OK. But no link to the Utne Reader!  By George, you're right!  He DOES wear jack boots!
 * Oh yeah, it's customary here to post new stuff at the bottom of the page, unless it's a direct response.Marteau 06:11, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I mean to whom he links in the main part of the page, not the long list of names below. I've only seen him lnk to a Dowd story two or three times, and always with an out-of-context quote designed to rile up his right-wing readers.  Look for it some time, you'll see that I'm speaking the truth.  And as for "its customary here" blah blah, thank you for the tip.  I've seen both practices, so this is news to me. Bds yahoo 15:07, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I reverted edits made by an anonymous editor which claimed only to reorder the contents of the page but in fact made significant textual emendations that were not specifically justified. For example, anonymous editor did not explain why he removed fact that Drudge's headlines stated that the physical contact between Kerry and Edwards was "unmanly." Bds yahoo 03:21, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Just a note to say I plan to revert yet another anonymous edit. If this guy wants to claim Drudge is a centrist, he has the right to add to what's already here, but not to write over competing evidence.  Bds yahoo 01:30, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

RE: Drudge not being a muckraker... were the original 'muckrakers' of the turn of the century politically neutral? Upton Sinclair was an unabashed socialist, but he's the poster boy for the muckrakers. Just a thought. --Dan Moore 05:02, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

POV in this article
This whole article is ridiculous, and in need of some serious revision. TDC 01:43, Aug 3, 2004 (UTC)


 * Want maybe to substantiate this claim, or are we expected to take your word for it? Bds yahoo 03:33, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that it has been expanded on. Muckraker absolutely contains a POV.  Furthermore, the "Drudge Retort" is not a retort, it is merely a parody, and I maintain that it is not a link of interest. Zenosparadox 01:33, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you consider it worth including if it was clearly indicated as a parody site? That's how it currently is linked in the article.  A search of Wikipedia for parody (like so)finds quite a lot of articles with parodies linked or mentioned in their text.  Alternatively, would you consider a stub article on Drudge Retort linked from Matt Drudge or Drudge Report more acceptable?  --ABQCat 01:54, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Trivial Deletions
I have spent the last several days reverting unjustified or inadequately justified deletions on this page. Those who think the facts presented on this page unfairly characterize Drudge as a right-wing puppet ought to counter those facts with more facts, rather than make facts they don't like disappear from the record. I'm not going to sit back and let that happen. Lately, an anonymous editor deleted a link to an article claiming that it doesn't reference Drudge, when Drudge is referred to just seven short paragraphs down! [NB: I wrote 'first' paragraph on my edit summary -- sorry, my mistake.]

Now I'm not calling all edits I personally disagree with "trivial." I thought Marteau offered good reasons for his edit, even though he and I don't see eye-to-eye on Drudge. Last time I reverted, I reverted to his version of the page.

So to sum up: those who don't like the evidence in this article should counter facts with facts. As far as I know, in working on this article, I have only added, not deleted. If something doesn't look like a fact to you, take it up on the talk page and let people discuss it rather than presuming to know better. If there's one thing supporters of Drudge should believe in, it's freedom of fact from censorship. Bds yahoo 04:36, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Liar
TDC: If you are going to delete things arbitrarily, don't lie about your reasons for doing so. The link you deleted works perfectly well. You liar. 68.14.135.101 16:01, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * The material alleging that Drudge is a homosexual adds nothing to the article and is complete hearsay and speculation. It does not belong in the article. And the link was broken the other day. TDC 02:38, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree. The allegation about homosexuality adds nothing to the article. What's it there for? Removing forthwith. --ALargeElk | Talk 19:46, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I also agree. --mav 04:19, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Certainly. Good cleanup. --Zenosparadox 00:05, 05 Dec 2004

I removed the section of the article where it is alleged that Matt Drudge is a homosexual. It is terribly POV and contributes nothing to the article. 24.229.25.11


 * Great, I'm glad you removed that. I saw it a while ago and came back to this article determined to delete it. It was entirely unfair and unsubstantiated. Guess someone was angry that he's a "mouthpiece of conservatives" (which is another thing that is pretty biased. He has posted multiple articles condemming Novak and Rove lately...)

--Elysianfields 20:46, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Birth date
Just in case anyone was wondering when he was born (some sources say 1966, others 1967) The Smoking Gun has a copy of a traffic ticket Drudge received in 1987. It shows his birth date as 10/27/66. --Minesweeper 18:34, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ann Coulter Inclusion
If Drudge's friendship with Ann Coulter is to be included, where should it be? Also, I haven't changed the wording, but did Drudge and Coulter really share an investigation, as suggested in the edit at 23:47 by 132.241.245.49? Sorry, I don't know how to link to the current version specifically (for use after the page is revised.) Rkevins82 00:17, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm curious as to whether or not it would be proper to include information surrounding Matt Drudge's personal affiliations in this entry. Under normal circumstances, I would think that a person's preference in sexual affiliations would have no place here, but due to the existance of media reports associating Drudge with various celebrities, claims of homosexual advances, and rampant gay club-hopping, I think that the subject should, at least, be broached. I see references in these comments were such allegations have been stricken from inclusion in unrelated topics, but I contend that they should be included on their own merit. The subject is not mere speculation, but rather well documented, as well as responded to by Drudge himself.

Thoughts?


 * 'Well documented?' Where? All I've seen are allegations, rumors and gossip. Marteau 21:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It may be helpful to delineate times that the sexuality of the subject would be of value. One seems to be a person who comments on various issues related to sexuality and defines their own sexuality.  That person has chosen for their sexuality to be public knowledge as a means of argumentation or show of "authenticity".  A few people that come to mind are Gore Vidal and Andrew Sullivan.  Neither is trying to keep their sexuality private, and in fact, both refer to it in writing about sexuality.


 * Another possibility is a subject that went through a scandal regarding their sexuality and reporting on that scandal would require mention of sexual orientation. Somebody like Arthur Finkelstein may fit this category, George Michael almost certainly would, though most examples I can think of were heterosexual in nature (like Bob Packwood cheating on his wife).


 * These are the only clear conditions I can think of and I welcome additions.


 * Using these criteria Drudge's sexuality seems impertinent. I welcome full debate. Rkevins82 23:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think hypocrisy would qualify, but I don't see that as applying in this case Marteau 00:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Why should hypocrisy count? That seems like attacking the subject. Rkevins82 02:52, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * For editorialists, it matters a great deal. If a guy is spouting opinion, and castigating other people for behaviours that he himself practices, then it is very relevant.  I don't think Drudge falls into that category, however, because I am not aware of him gay bashing.  But if, for example, he had very cleary expressed anti-homosexual attitudes, and it turns out that he himself was homosexual at the time, it goes towards his credibility.  And credibility is very important for reporters, and it would be, therefore, a very relevant issue.      A prime example is the editorialist Carl Rowan, who often wrote about the evils of handguns and how they should be banned.  Well, surprise surprise, some kids trespass on his property, and he shoots them.  That incident would absolutely belong in any article about him, because it shows him to be preaching one thing, in editorials, and doing another.  And yes, Drudge editorializes.  I like to read his page, I think he is a knucklehead at times, sometimes valuable, sometimes a fool. Never dull, but he is anything BUT a dispassionate reporter and because he editorializes any hypocrisy between his personal and professional editorializing is CERTAINLY relevant because it has a direct bearing on his product and claim to fame.  Marteau


 * Maybe I'm alone here, but how is pointing-out hypocrisy related to the mission of an encyclopedia? It appears to be the action of a person who does not approve of the work of a person.  Your example doesn't fit into either of my categories (partly because it doesn't include sexual relations).  I'll withhold responding in the hope others join the discussion. Rkevins82 21:20, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Kerry Affair Repudiated?
I deleted the claim on the Drudge Report article that the Kerry Affair story/rumor was repudiated. I'm not claiming that it wasn't, but there was no sourcing to that claim. Equinox137 13:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Drudge says, "In retrospect, I should have had a sentence saying, 'There is no evidence to tie Alex to John Kerry.' I should have put that." http://www.cyberjournalist.net/news/001340.php So why don't you put the article back the way it was? 68.110.199.122 06:29, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Matt Drudge the Libertarian.
Far be it from me to give my little old opion but I have been under attack because I dared to say that Drudge should be labeled a conservative in an article which used a quote of his. He may sometimes come off on the conservative sides to issues but he is more of a libertarian than a conservative. Of course labels are pretty much opinion anyway but anyone who supports Michael Jackson to the hilt is not a conservative.


 * Drudge "supports Michael Jackson to the hilt"? What on earth are yout talking about?


 * He's obviously a libertarian, however, the lable is so misunderstood as to be almost useless (unless the subject applies it himself, or by his affiliations, not just his views, or unless they are 100% lock-step with Libertarian Party dogma, which Drudge's are not. Close, but not 100%).  I'd avoid labeling him at all.  That, of course, will be impossible with so many different agendas here, so I'm staying out of the fight. My two cents.  Marteau 21:19, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't agree he's "obviously" libertarian if he supports expensive foreign wars and assists in the smearing of anti-government protesters. I do agree we should avoid labelling him and just provide facts about what policies and politicians he supports in his Report, and which he is critical of. 68.110.199.122 06:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Soledad O'Brien business
The link to Drudge's flash where he misleadingly (and selfpromotingly) passes off an 8-year-old magazine fluff piece as news has, of course, been removed by Drudge. But perhaps this link would be worth including in the body of the article? http://mediamatters.org/items/200508100007. 68.110.199.122 06:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course it HAS to be included in Wikipedia, where we hunt to discredit non-liberals day and night in order to use the information against them in their ENCYCLOPEDIA entries. lol!

Actually, this is probably fair game since, to my knowledge, Drudge offered no explanation as to why he tried to pass this off as CNN's O'Brien.

I did re-write it though.

As usual, in the rush to diminish a non-liberal, the Wik editor who wrote this put out a pretty sloppy piece.

Here's my edit:

"A notorious self-promoter, Drudge frequently gives significant space on his site to endorsements from other major media figures. A controversial example was his display of the cover of Small Business Computing magazine picturing Soledad O'Brien with the Drudge Report on her computer and a caption claiming it was her "favorite website." [5]

Ms. O'Brien hosted the American Morning program on CNN at the time, and the implication was that a CNN anchor was praising the Drudge Report. However, the magazine cover in question was several years old and published when Ms. O'Brien was still working for rival netwark MSNBC"

Big Daddy 18:59, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

The current edit war about the Personal life section
Okay, the Personal life edit war needs to end now. What should be included or not included? (I'm not into the Drudge Report and politics that much) Also Eleemosynary, just because you disagree with a person about a deletion doesn't qualifies as a "vandalism." --J. Nguyen 05:22, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If a User states he or she will unilaterally remove content without providing a valid reason, it's very much vandalism. That's why I called it that.  As for why the "Personal Life" information belongs, it goes to the heart of who Matt Drudge is.  Sensationalist by nature (the now-debunked Kerry "affair," the Sidney Blumenthal wife-beating accusations), he nevertheless removed all links from his page to sources who revealed some rather scandalous details about his own life.  Removing the details--however lurid--from the article is revisionist and non-encyclopedic. Eleemosynary 07:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think an outrageous article from a left-wing hack blog is the type of NEUTRAL material that should be posted in an article.


 * Eleemosynary, by linking single entry of a gossip blog you are being intellectually dishonest and are a disservice to the Wikipedia community. If you continue to insist on inserting a person’s bizarre sexual habits, please find a legitimate source that is actually factual and not based SOLELY on gossip.  Seriously, provide me one other legitimate source.  Good luck finding that other source because it simply isn’t true.Giles22


 * How lucky Matt Drudge is to have you to attest for his pristine, unsullied self. Eleemosynary 10:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * How does unsubstantiated rumors about a person's sexual preference go to the heart of who he is?Giles22


 * Was that a purposeful misrepresentation of what I typed? Eleemosynary 10:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Salon.com is not a "gossip blog." You can insist it is till you're blue in the face, but it won't make it so.  But characterization of it as a "left-wing hack blog" reveals the poster's POV on the subject, as well as the POV of the continued blanking.  The source is not based "solely" on gossip; read it again.  I need not provide you with any source other than the completely legitimate one already used.  As for your claim that it "simply isn't true," I'm afraid wishing won't make it so.  You may not like the info it presents, but that's no reason to blank it. Eleemosynary 17:50, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The lack of any credible source (or even any other uncredible source for that matter) speaks to the veracity of this information.
 * Wishing that this was a "credible" source won't make it so. One random blog entry on a reputed "gossip site" does not make the information contained therein true.Giles22


 * Once again, it's not a "gossip site." Neither is it a random blog.  And the "I know you are but what am I" argument you put forth is rather puerile, dont' you think? Eleemosynary 18:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That doesn't even make any sense. Giles22


 * Sorry, willful ignorance and stonewalling is no excuse. Keep blanking; I'll keep reverting until you provide evidence why the SOURCED data should not be trusted. Eleemosynary 19:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "willful ignorance and stonewalling is no excuse" I couldn't have said it better myself!Giles22


 * Thanks for the compliment! Eleemosynary 10:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

This section is garbage. The source article specifically refers to Walls as a GOSSIP columnist and specificallt refers to her CLAIMS as RUMORS. This is absolutely inappropriate in an encyclopedia. A bathroom wall maybe, but not an encyclopedia.--Kevin 20:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well said Kevin. What can we do about this? Giles22


 * I'll leave it to the two of you to work it out in a civil manner. Please don't carry on the edit war.  I've reported both of you for 3RR. I don't think either of you took into consideration how annoying they are to everyone else. --Kevin 20:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for that. I am very new to the site and wasn't sure how things are done around here.  It just enraged me that rumors such as this could be turned into actual encyclopedic information by being posted on this site.  I didn't see any other filter or process that could correct the problem save an edit war. Giles22

I'm not sure if the section should be mentioned or not (is this really notable?), but after reviewing the source, I think that if it is to be included, it needs to be rewritten. The section misquotes the source and intimates something that the source doesn't claim. I'll check back later. -- LV (Dark Mark)  20:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, I had blocked both Giles22 and Eleemosynary for 3RR violation, but I will unblock on the condition that neither of you edit the sexuality part of the article for the next 24 hours.. If you do, I'll block you again without warning. Ral315 (talk) 21:24, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I will agree to this. However, is there some sort of ultimate authority or system operator that we can appeal to about whether this belongs?  Perhaps put it up to a public vote or solicit public comments?  How does this work?  Giles22


 * It's best to work out a consenus. That's what the talk pages are for, i.e. they are not for sniping, bickering, name-calling, etc.  Make a proposal, ask for agreement.  Ask for a vote.  Anything other than revertrevertrevertrevert.  Reversions aren't bad in and of themselves, but if you do a revert and it's reverted back, it's time to start a discussion - not a war.  That's my 2 cents, at least.--Kevin 21:40, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * FWIW, I'm all for getting rid of the entire section. It's just plain icky and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.--Kevin 21:43, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I agree Drudge's sexual history (especially the pubic lice and egg fetish) is extremely icky. However, Kevin, you might want to check the Wikipedia page for bukkake to see an example of what other editors find suitable for Wikipedia.  Since when are subjective claims of "ickiness" valid reasons for deleting sourced material? Eleemosynary 02:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. This is the type of thing that belongs on "salon.com" and not on Wikipedia.  It is intellectually dishonest to purport rumors or gossip to be "fact." Giles22


 * Methinks I smell a whitewash. Eleemosynary 10:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it wouldn't necessarily be bad to discuss allegations of his homosexuality, but we don't need to talk about one person who claimed that he wanted to be "fuck buddies", etc. Ral315 (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Why not? Brock is the founder of mediamatters.org, as well as former right-wing author of a treatise against Anita Hill.  I'm not buying all this Puritanism; it sounds like a dodge to shield Drudge from any info that might paint him in a less-than-radiant light. Eleemosynary 02:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Eleemosynary, the goal of this article, as I understand it, is not to slander Drudge. As the article currently stands, it is fairly pointed out that there have been homosexual accusations levied against Drudge.  Please keep your political point of view out of this.  Giles22


 * Said the pot to the kettle. Eleemosynary 09:26, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fair. The allegations are out there - they're a reality.  I could even see leaving in a bit that alludes to a request to enter a Casual relationship sent via email or something.  I just think it doesn't need to be so tabloidish (that's a real word, BTW).--Kevin 21:58, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

What about this?


 * There has been some speculation about Drudge's sexuality. Washington landscaper David Cohen has said that he once dated Drudge.  In his 2002 book, Blinded by the Right, formerly closeted conservative David Brock describes visiting gay bars with Drudge in Hollywood and receiving an email from Drudge suggesting that they enter into a casual relationship.  Drudge denies being homosexual but admits visiting gay bars: "I go to bars. I go to straight bars, I go to gay bars. [Walls] never said there was sex; she said there was dating. She never had enough to go that far." (Miami New Times, June 28, 2001).

It's a bit more balanced, removes the unwieldy "fuck buddies" part, and removed a few articles ('a', 'and') that didn't really fit with the flow of the paragraph. I restructured the Cohen/Brock sentence into two separate sentences. I also changed 'concedes' to 'admits'; the word 'concede' sounds too much like he's admitting defeat, rather than making a general comment. I'd like to hear from everyone- does this sound better overall? Ral315 (talk) 22:09, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * "Casual relationship" is far too nonspecific, and obscures the issue. "Homosexual relationship" is accurate, and not as vulgar as "fuck buddies." If "casual" is changed to "homosexual," the edit is fine with me. Eleemosynary 02:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That looks good to me. And a wonderful exercise in civil discussion. :) --Kevin 22:19, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, this is fine with me. If this section is to be included at all, this is a *MUCH* better version. Giles22


 * Change "casual" to "homosexual" or "gay," and I'm fine with the edit. Otherwise, it's far too vague.


 * It's obvious that it's a homosexual relationship; we use the word 'gay' three other times, and 'homosexual' once in the paragraph. There's no need to repeat it.  Ral315 (talk) 02:37, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * After another reading of the article, I concur. Eleemosynary 10:03, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Giles22=Sockpuppet?
"Giles22" seems to have born today, and only to revert the Drudge personal info edits. Sockpuppets are so silly. But they also get reverted. Eleemosynary 19:12, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * As an experienced user, I'm sure you know to assume good faith. This user may or may not be a sockpuppet, but let's try to keep it civil.  Ral315 (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, "assume good faith"... up to a point. "Giles22" seems to have an extraordinary knowledge of the ins and outs of revert wars for a brand new user.  His claims of being a legitimate user simply don't hold up under scrutiny. Eleemosynary 23:35, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There are no in's and out's of a revert war. There are no nuances.  It's just a piontless and tiresome display of hard-headedness.  As for the scrutiny argument: When was there any attempt at scrutiny, or for that matter any reasonable need for scrutiny. In a nutshell, from the outside it looks like ad hominem.--Kevin 23:54, 9 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, please. It's a sockpuppet.  Check the edit history.  End of friggin' story. Eleemosynary 02:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I am a brand new user, I can promise you that. I have been using Wikipedia for a little over a month now and have never edited an article before this.  Once again you are showing your ignorance here Eleemosynary. Assume all you want, but you're still an idiot and wrong at that.  Giles22


 * I trust Ral315 will be referring you to the NPA page now. LOL! Eleemosynary 02:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What are you talking about? Giles22


 * Ignore him and move forward. He's baiting. The goals here are civility and improving articles. If you are okay with the compromise and he's okay with the compromise, then all's good. There's no need to carry on a disagreement.--Kevin 02:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And don't call people idiots. It's totally self-defeating. You have no ground to stand on when you show yourself the same.--Kevin 02:51, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good advice Kevin. It's tough to keep quiet sometimes when people can be so difficult and have such gross misjudgment about certain things. Giles22


 * Yeah. It makes a sockpuppet's head hurt. Eleemosynary 05:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And I want to keep giving Eleemosynary a reason to keep that permanent scowl on his face. Giles22


 * It's a knowing grin, socky. Good luck trying to get all mention of Drudge's sexuality censored from the article.  Consensus just doesn't seem to be building, no matter how tortured your logic. :) Eleemosynary 03:05, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Civility--Elliskev 03:13, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You can be assured that I am the one with the grin on my face Eleemo. I am *very* happy with the edit.  Giles22


 * Good for you. You're very gracious in defeat. Eleemosynary 16:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Just stop and think before editing. There are better ways to deal with people that you find diificult than call them 'idiots' in front of the whole world.--Kevin 03:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Sexuality Germaine?
Is it proper to speculate at all on a person's sexuality? Is it NPoV to add things that are denied by the subject, such as sexuality? We don't have such a section in many celeberties bios, why here? Even if he was gay, closeted gay, or onanist does it change his contributions or achievments? If he was gay and was sleeping with supermodels in secret would we care? Should it change how we view his work? This is the higher standard of inclusion.


 * No one is "speculating." Drudge has not denied Brock's claims.  Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

In all seriousness, people who promote human rights offer the right to privacy as a main reason why conservatives should accept gay rights. Activists will often say, we should treat gay people exactly as we treat non-gay people. If he was openly gay, I can see inclusion, as another fact. Speculation in the face of his denial, is not NPoV, and smacks of wikipedia participating in a dirty trick to discredit him.

I know there is an edit war. I am trying to not participate in that part of it, but my question goes to the heart of the edit war. Does his sexuality change how we should view his work? Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 13:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Drudge has made speculating on people's sexuality the heart and soul of his work. Witness his suggestions of a Kerry/Edwards homosexual relationship throughout the 2004 election campaign (which contrasted somewhat with Drudge's earlier claim that Kerry was sleeping with a former intern).  Attempts to eradicate Drudge's sexuality from the article smacks of POV censorship.  As to whether his sexuality should change "how we view his work," I have no idea.  The two issues have no bearing on each other. The question is, is Drudge's sexuality relevant to the article?  Yes.  Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * No, his sexuality has nothing to do with how we view his work, but if something has been mentioned repeatedly in the press, in different places, it may be notable and worth noting in Wikipedia. As long as it is notable and presented in an NPOV way, it may have a place. -- LV (Dark Mark)  14:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't think it should change how we should view his work. I'm not sure on whether the allegations are credible or not. If they are, I think it could be argued that we can discuss the allegations themselves, making no attempt to judge either way. Clay Aiken makes a brief reference to the jokes thereof, and to actual questioning of his sexuality. I don't see why making a brief, tasteful reference is wrong. (unsigned comment by Ral315)


 * That is my first thought. It is wrong because right now we have gossipy "bedroom" tales, and it isn't widely reported in the media. There is no way to tastefully publish mere gossip. In that, it missed two primary criteria for Wikipedia. My arguent before is that even if it is true, it does not impact his work, and it is mere character assasination, which should not be allowed. If it was a bigger story that 100 newspapers carried over the US, and took a life of it's own thats one thing. The difference between this and Clay Atkins is that he made references to it, beyond a denial. Clay gave it a life that made it notable. In Rush's case drug abuse is something we would use to change our opinion of a person. Being gay or secretly gay should not change out opinion, and in this case, Wikipedia becomes a carrier of a "bedroom tale". Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 15:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not all of us would "change our opinion of a person" were they found to be a drug abuser. And the standard for Wikipedia inclusion is not if something would "change our opinion," but (among other things), whether it is reliably sourced.  And homosexuality is only a smear if someone wishes to view it that way. Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. The fact that homosexuality is being used here as an implied insult and part of a character assisination is unacceptable.  Drudge has denied being homosexual, and until there is actual evidence besides innuendo and speculation, I don't think it should be included as part of encyclopedic information.  Let it remain where it belongs, in the tabloids and gossip blogs.  Giles22


 * All 1,780,000 of them. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 19:53, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Good point. Brock's statements are neither innuendo nor speculation. Attempting to censor the article is very POV. Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't remove the information completely, I don't think. Questions about his sexuality are part of his life, and we shouldn't just ignore them. Properly cited information, with no regards for which belief is correct, is the best way to go. Ral315 (talk) 19:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If Drudge questioned his own sexuality openly, thats different. Why don't we have a section on Richard Simmons questioning his sexuality? We could start a whole gay inquisition. Why don't we? Because in 99 out of 100 cases it is not an issue, and raising the issue when it is not raised in the mass media, is repeating gossip.


 * So I can make a unfounded gossipy claim that someone is a child molestor, and that would be included in the Wikipedia? Thats the core issue, not if Matt Drudge talks about homosexuals. Most instances from the Drudge google claim were about openly gay people. The preperly formatted hits from Drudge are exactly 17 . Zerohit links:


 * Those are hardly "properly formatted hits," and I don't buy the parallelism between the sourced claims of Drudge's homosexuality and accusing someone of child molestation. One is a sexual preference, the other an abhorrent crime. Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So, is wikipedia in the business of outing people now? Even if we are now going to do that, "gayness" should be as relevant as saying a subject likes to have sex with fat girls. It should not affect how his reporting is perceived, and it is intended as political character assasination with some people who DO think that sexual preference is a reason to read someone. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 20:42, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Brock, not Wikipedia, outed Drudge. It's not demonstrably true that outing someone is akin to character assassination.  Stories of homosexuality swirled around Rosie O'Donnell and Ellen Degeneres for years before they came out.  Were they sourced, they would have been appropriate for Wikipedia.  It should also be noted that those performers' careers hardly suffered for being in, or out, of the closet. Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The article should simply say that in interviews he has repeatedly denied being gay. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 21:07, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

After doing some browsing, I came across other "public figures" that have had homosexual accusations come their way. Two good examples are Mike Piazza see also the talk page Talk:Mike_Piazza and Richard Gere. On both pages, after edit-wars and public discussions, the majority of the accusations were removed from the site. I don't see why it should be any different in Drudge's case. Giles22


 * Piazza and Gere do not publish websites that have a pattern of calling others' sexuality (Kerry/Edwards) and married life (Blumenthal) into question. Drudge does.  When a trafficker in innuendo goes to great lengths to silence sourced claims about himself, I'd say that's germane.  Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * In other words, you oppose the inclusion of documented facts in this article. Good to know. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 23:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not necessarily. If the majority of users do think that it's important to include reference to the fact that the accusations have been made, I think the current form of the article is acceptable.


 * Agreed. Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My personal opinion on the matter is that I don't support is any sort of "witch hunt" to try to "out" people on wikipedia. This site should not take part in this sort of behavior, ESPECAILLY if it is politically motivated (which I suspect that it is in the case of Drudge).  That sort of thing should be left to different sorts of outlets that do NOT INLCUDE a factual encyclopedia.  But I also recognize that we could argue about this all day long. For example, I can already see the response coming, "it is factual that we are reporting that there are allegations concerning this matter, regardless of whether they are true or not".  But this argument misses the point.  To try to suggest that just because there have been accusations made that something is factually based is irresponsible.  It would be comparable to inserting under (1) George Bush's or (2) Bill Clinton's entries that (1) the Bush Administration planned 9/11 or that (2) the Clinton Administration created the Kosovo conflict to avoid Monica Lewinsky scandal.  Should that information be included in an encyclopedia just because some crackpot has suggested it before?  Certainly not if it's politically motiviated, unsubstantiated speculation and rumor.


 * You're building a straw man. See earlier comments re: Brock. Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Perhaps if this information was in fact GERMAINE to Matt Drudge's job, then it would be relevant. I am not an apologist of Matt Drudge -- I think he can be a gossip monger and his merits as a "journalist" are extremely doubtful, in my opinion.  But I am a long time reader of the Drudge Report and listener of his radio talk show, and I have never heard an anti-gay utterance made or written by him.  And don't try to tell me that he's a "self-loathing homosexual" because he is a member of the so-called "right-wing conspiracy" -- even if this were the case his politics alone do not prove ANYTHING about his views on homosexuality.  Even if we assume, arguendo, he is both gay and Republican, this is NOT hypocricy in and of itself that should be the subject of an attempt to assasinate his character on this website.  Giles22


 * He doth protest too much, methinks. Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ladies and gentlemen, Mr. Joseph McCarthy!


 * He's a witch I say! Burn him!  BURN HIM!  Giles22


 * Hyperbole and bluster. Eleemosynary 16:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Give me a break, Goethean. Documented facts? Lob an accusation and the denial becomes a documented fact, thus perpetuating and giving weight to the accusation? That's a dirty game.  --User:Elliskev 00:15, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Brock is documented. Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And no axe to grind, right? --Elliskev 22:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * There are no facts, nothing verifiable. Only accusations denied by the victim subject. Seriously, are there are clear political motives to lie? Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 02:30, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, do Drudge's most ardent supporters have clear political motivations to whitewash sourced details about him? Especially if those details contrast somewhat with the "ideal construct" of a right-wing conservative?  Matt Drudge as a victim?  I'll assume irony there.  Brock's statement is "verifiable," (in that he said it), as it is sourced.  Bald-faced denials by Drudge's supporters here will do nothing to change that.Eleemosynary 09:11, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You really aren't getting this Eleemosynary. Just because a rumor or speculation has been "documented" doesn't lend any credence to its veracity.  If Drudge were asked whether he was a vegetarian, and he denied it,  this would also be documented.  Would it belong on this page?  Why, you might argue that he has portrayed PETA in a negative light on his website.  Would this then become germaine, even if there is NO PROOF to the claim whatsoever?  I think not.  You could march around all day claiming Drudge was a vegetarian and that there was documented proof that accusations were out there.  It means nothing.  By the way, I am not an "ardent supporter" of Drudge.  Please take your POV, politics, gossip and revisionist version of history somewhere else.  Giles22


 * Is this a willful disregarding of facts? Brock's statement is neither rumor nor speculation.  Your "vegetarian" argument is another straw man.  And with non-"ardent supporters" like you, who needs public relations firms?  (By the way, no need for such anger; we're all apparently happy with the article as it now stands. :) Eleemosynary 16:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Brock made a statement, is it coobrerated? Not at all. Does this story have any legs in any mainstream source? None. Is it widely reported? Nope. It is not more widely reported than other allegations on homosexuality for Richard Gere, that did not merit inclusion. I also have never found a single article Drudge wrote that "outed" a person, so this isn't turn about. Can you provide one? I may read Drudge, but if that disqualified me fromediting, then it disqualifies you as you have a animus against the man. I think his methods are loose, but, on the other hand, I do not like people publishing reports that Hillary Clinton is a lesbian, which are more widely reported, and are much more notable. The article is silent on this issue.


 * Brock relayed a statement of Drudge's "let's be fuck buddies" e-mail from personal experience. That may not be good enough for you, but it's a verifiable source.  And it was indeed reported, althought not "widely" enough for you (a pretty subjective standard for inclusion).  Were someone to go on the record saying Hillary Clinton had been sending similar e-mails, that would of course be all right to include on her page.  Brock's statement is not "rumor."  And I never suggested Drudge "outed" anyone, just that one of his favorite practices is casting doubt on others' sexuality.  When Brock published his account of Drudge's overt sexual advances, Drudge had every opportunity to sue him for libel.  If the e-mail story was false, it could easily be disproved.  Brock has evidence.  The Hilary rumor-mongers don't.  It's that simple. Eleemosynary 16:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

The email isn't verified, I can verify it is an email, but, I can't validate it. It is a single data point, if it is to be believed. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 17:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Fine. You're not convinced.  That doesn't invalidate the legitimacy of the source. In any way. Eleemosynary 19:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Even at that Eleemosynary, are you trying to profit from the fact that some people treat homosexuals unfairly, by claiming that Drudge is a homosexual? Why else is this important? Can we come to some consensus? Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 14:25, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

You're suggesting I may "profit" from gay-bashers? A nonsensical, offensive ruse. I've stated ad nauseam why the information is germane. Several editors now say the article, with Drudge's sexual information, is fine. Consensus appears to have been reached. Eleemosynary 16:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

It is true as far as I can tell. You want political hay against Drudge. COnsenses seems to be mixed, leaned to removal. Hillary's people have evidence thats just as good as this gossip. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 17:18, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Your first sentence is purely subjective. "As far as I can tell"?  Are you the now arbiter of what is rumor and what is not?  Your second statment is false.  Your third statement is wishful thinking: the consensus is leaning toward retention, regardless of repeated comments by the same "for the love of god, erase Drudge's sexuality" folks.  Your fourth sentence is laughable, unsupported speculation.  Unlike Brock's statement.  Eleemosynary 17:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're misstating the facts. I disagree with the inclusion, but have stated that if it *IS* to be included, then the current version is acceptable.  I think we all agree on this.  But we have yet to reach a consensus on whether this information should be included at all.  I'd like to solicit a vote immediately on this.  Should we include a section containing "sourced" speculation on Drudge's sexuality?  I vote NO.  Giles22


 * No, you're denying consensus. Solicit as many "votes" as you want, they won't change the above statements.  It's reasonable to assume, based on your edit history, that you're a sockpuppet creation solely to edit the Drudge article.  Come off it. Eleemosynary 17:27, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Please READ the comments above. And get off this whole sock-puppet conspiracy theory.  It's so juevenile.  Giles22


 * Comments have been read. Consensus leans towards inclusion.  Your edit history suggests deliberate sockpuppetry.  No "conspiracy theory" there.  Just the actions of one user. And I won't be dropping the subject anytime soon.Eleemosynary 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely, categorically wrong that I am a sock-puppet. The first changes I have ever made to a Wikipedia page were to the Matt Drudge page.  I have also made other non-Drudge changes since.  Look up my profile in 6 months and you will find a HOST of other edits, all non-Drudge related.  Despite certain users on Wikipedia, I think it is a great, supportive community that really provides a valuable service to the community at large.  I will continue to use and be a part of this community.  Giles22


 * The first changes you ever made were in an edit war with me, magically appearing out of thin air and claiming to be Wikipedia novice. I can't prove you're a sockpuppet (at least, not yet), but assuming good faith does not mean suspending all disbelief.  And your "bringing an apple to the teacher" and amplified protestations in your last two sentences is a bit much.  Eleemosynary 17:55, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct those are the first changes I have made. I was unfamiliar with the etiquite of edit wars and saw it as the only way to take out the salon.com entry.  As for the last two sentences, despite your personal attack on my attitude, I stand by what I said.  I really enjoy this site and think that the dialogue feature is extremely useful to control unwiedly users.  Giles22


 * I should have said "first changes you ever made under the 'Giles22' identity." Your claims of "unfamiliarity" with Wiki edit wars are laughable.  Check the comment history: you claimed to have reported me for 3RR during that war.  Not really the mark of a novice.  Your last sentence is another straw men, intended to convey "hey, I can't be a sockpuppet... I LOVE WIKIPEDIA."  It's a common misdirection tactic, and it won't wash. Eleemosynary 18:19, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Again with the twisting of the facts. You are really into that, huh?  I claimed to have "reported you," not for any violation in particular.  That was only in response to you reporting me.  I thought you were in the wrong as much as I was.  I tried to figure out how to even report you, but gave up to continue the edit war.  So, months from now when I have a full user history, will you appologize for this nonsense and slander then?  I'm not counting on it.  I fully expect you to continue your pattern come up with some excuse or cop-out then to justify your inaccuracies and stubbornness.  Giles22


 * So, you were dishonest about reporting me? What else have you been dishonest about?  And nice try with the "poor me, my novice self can't figure out these complicated edit wars."  Sorry, I'm not swallowing that.  But your "months from now" gambit is hysterical.  As if keeping a sockpuppet identity going for months somehow makes it not a sockpuppet anymore.  Nonsense.  I'm indeed stubborn when I smell a rat, but that's hardly the same as being inaccurate.  So, I'm happy to leave it at that.  You say you're not a sockpuppet, and (based on reason, intuition, and experience), I say you are. Eleemosynary 18:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * ONCE AGAIN, you are not READING what I wrote. I was GOING to report you, but I couldn't figure it out.  There is nothign dishonest about that.  Giles22


 * Ahem, check the edit history. You stated I had been reported, not that you were "going to do it."  That's what you wrote.  Now, you're trying to backtrack.  You can't have it both ways.  That's dishonest. Eleemosynary 19:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And also, true to form, you misunderstand my "gambit." I am not a sockpuppet.  What I was asking is, will you ever appologize if you find out that you were wrong about me being one?  I know you won't, and you'll try to justify it just as you did in your last post, but I just wanted to lay down that challenge to you.  Giles22


 * What challenge? To apologize if I'm shown proof you're not a sockpuppet?  I anticipate the "you can't prove a negative" comments coming any moment now.  If, of course, I see proof that you have only ever posted as Giles22, I'd of course apologize.  Is such proof coming?  I'm eager to see what would establish that.  Why you'd issue a challenge for me to apologize, when you, apparently, "know" I won't, is curious.  But if I'm wrong, I'd of course apologize. Eleemosynary 19:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Gies22 I willl show you here. Go to WP:RFC/USER The reason, obviously, is Eleemosynary would like this to be a chain of personal attacks WP:NPA and accusations of sockpuppetry. If you were to write him/her up, be clear and be concise. If Eleemosynary wants to cut it out, I suggest you drop it. Obviously this is a politico who wants to tar public people selectivly. Thats common, but one who would like to spit out such "urine" and vinegar is not acceptable. Put a link here if you decide to go through with this, and only do this if you want to do this right. Remmeber you need to have clean hands as well. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:36, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Wow, a personal attack couched in an admonishment against personal attacks. No one ever said Wikipedia wasn't a font of irony! :) Eleemosynary 00:14, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * That wasn't a personal attack, it was an observation. Like I said in other places, people making edits for a personal PoV are pretty common, but there should be a sense of decorum. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:45, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You may want to take your own advice. Eleemosynary 16:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The Republican party is vigorously anti-gay. All active supporters of the Republican party who are gay and do not publicly state their position on these key elements of the Republican platform should be outed.  In the case of Drudge, outing is not necessary (it's already been done by Brock) but there's no doubt it's pertinent, as it demonstrates the hypocrisy of the Republican party.  The amount and intensity of discussion here proves its pertinence. --Kstern999 16:28, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I have NEVER understood this inclusion. It is not the policy of the Wikipedia to out homosexual Republicans based on your personal political convictions.  This is an encyclopedia not a forum for "demonstrat[ing] the hypocrisy of the Republican party."  There have been allegations that Drudge is gay, yes.  He denies it.  Therefore the claims are dubious and non-pertinent.  I find the rationale that Drudge reports on people's sexuality therefore it is germaine for the article to be particularly flimsy.  Wikipedia does not seem to be in the business of conforming to Matt Drudge's standards, which are arguably too low already.

What really seems to be going on is inclusion as a kind of ad hominem attack in order to ruin Drudge's credentials with the "vigorously anti-gay" Republican party. Kstern999 sums up what I fear its inclusion means quite well actually. The only problem is that this is unencyclopedic at best and a smear at worst. I suggest that the section is removed seeing as it is uncorraborated and there are no refences for it.Rtrev 16:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Public comment requested: Should speculation on Drudge's sexuality be included in his personal life section?
My vote is no. See the above section for my comments. Giles22

False premise in this section header. Brock's and Cohen's statements are not speculation. You're trying to game the system. Very bad form. Eleemosynary 17:31, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok, I will change it. Do I need to remind you that the first sentence of the paragraph on Matt Drudge's personal life, a paragraph that you approved of mind you, reads - "There has been some speculation about Drudge's sexuality."  Giles22


 * Perhaps it should be changed to "At least two men have gone on the record stating they have dated Drudge, or have been propositioned by him." I'd be fine with that change. Eleemosynary 17:40, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

How about this, all people who vote no, write in this column. All people who vote yes, write in the below column. Giles22


 * How about this? Let's not deny the consensus of the above section by basing a "vote" on a false premise.  You're trying to throw out the above comments leaning toward inclusion by starting from scratch, and limiting debate.  An "up or down vote," if you will.  Please stop trying to game the system. Eleemosynary 17:48, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. I want to preserve all of the above comments.  Besides, the majority seems to share my opinion of wanting to delete the section in the entirety.  Giles22


 * I think you may need to count the comments again. As Moynihan said, "you're entitled to your own opinion; you're not entitled to your own facts." Eleemosynary 17:57, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The comments speak for themselves. I am done taking your flame-bait.  Good day.  Giles22


 * You take care now. Eleemosynary 18:21, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * My vote is yes. I agree with Eleemosynary, that this question is based on a false premise. Five minutes of online research came up with direct quotes from two men, David Brock and actor Alec Baldwin, who say that Drudge flirted with them.  Drudge's sexuality is relevant in the same way J. Edgar Hoover's was:  he has made a career of attacking people for sexual peccadillos while apparently shielding some pecca-grandes of his own, so to speak. It is relevant to his credibility, which is certainly relevant to his Wikipedia entry. -- Lisasmall 17:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

---

I vote yes, for the reason stated above.

Public comment requested: Should legitimately sourced, non-libelous, first-person accounts of Drudge's sexuality be included in his page?
My vote is yes. See above comments. Eleemosynary 17:34, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I think this one is skewed. Lets come to a consensus on this and we can delete them both.  What do you think of my new idea?  Giles22 (UTC)


 * I think it's gaming the system. Brock and Cohen are not "accusing" Drudge of anything.  They are relating first-person accounts of liaisons with him. Eleemosynary 17:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

By the way, it's is hysterical to me how you accuse me of doing something disingenous, i.e. "gaming the system," and then you go right ahead and do the same exact thing! Giles22


 * I did it to show the absurdity of your premise. I'm for deleting both sections completely. Eleemosynary 17:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

To answer the question, yes, the sourced information about Drudge should be included. We do not censor the Wikipedia for reasons of partisanship, prudery, or because homosexuality is an alleged "insult", which is a bigoted POV. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 17:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Remove They are non cooberated gossip. They were made by activists bent on discrediting him. Wikipedia is better than that. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 21:51, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Nice try, Dominick. The evidence is entirely corroborated, though you apparently will insist otherwise until you're blue in the face.  Your opinion is that "activists bent on discrediting" Drudge are behind the edit.  Nonsense.  Petulance is no substitute for sourced, non-libelous evidence. Eleemosynary 22:46, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Look, this is one person making the claim, and this one perosn has not produces any other people who can make the same claim. You asked for the vote, my vote counts and I see a lot of removes. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're muddying the issue. The "libelous" (perhaps) info that has been removed refers to the Salon.com claims of pubic lice and and "egg fetish," not to the homosexuality issue.  Please stop trying to whitewash the issue. Eleemosynary 00:10, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Remove libelous crap. --Elliskev 22:52, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Neither libelous nor crap. Here are some more sources for Brock's book, many with the page number.  You're welcome! (By the way, I'm arguing to keep in the revision that you wrote.)  Are you saying your contribution is "libelous crap"?  I didn't think so.  Eleemosynary 23:56, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * I didn't write it. If you look, you'll see that I have been against having the section all along.  I did put the new language in (again, I didn't write it) to try to restore a sense of decorum and civility to an edit war.  It was a compromise that toned down the language without ending the debate regarding wheter or not the section belonged. --Elliskev 13:54, 15 November 2005 (UTC)


 * And the hairsplitting begins. Okay, you didn't write it originally, but you revised the article to include it.  Thanks for putting in the compromise language. Eleemosynary 05:02, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Remove I'm just wondering why, if it's not libelous crap, can you only read about it at some blog. Surely if this were true there would be more than one source.  The only reason it was put up was to discredit Matt Drudge who has done nothing to anybody.  He has a little radio show and a website that he does't write the stories for most of the time.  I would really like to see more than one source for this.  LanceManion1973


 * Hi, Lance. It's in Brock's book Blinded By The Right, and can be read about on more than just Salon.com. Check here:  Just to be clear, I think the article is fine as it is.  No problem not including Drudge's pubic lice or "egg fetish."  Those are a bit icky, after all.  Eleemosynary 23:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Because it's SPECULATION. Unfortunately we see this all the time, especially when it comes to media figures and homosexuality.  Take Tom Cruise for example, he has had to deal with the downside to this for years now.  What ever happened to adopting the Seinfeld mantra: "not that there's anything wrong with it."  Unfortunately the witch-hunts continue...  Giles22


 * And here's more links about Brock's book, which is not speculation: Eleemosynary 23:58, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So Eleemosynary, I guess we should include on both John Edwards's and John Kerry's profiles that there is documented accusations that they are homosexuals, right? I mean, according to you Drudge has reported on this, right?  Lets throw it in there!  Giles22


 * If someone's on the record with verifiable proof (i.e. emails) that they've asked anyone to be "fuck buddies" (as Drudge did to David Brock), why yes... include it on their pages. Sadly, your straw man argument has been defeated again.  Brock has documented proof, not baseless allegations. It's not that subtle a difference.  Take a deep breath, and you'll get it.  Eventually. Eleemosynary 00:42, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * So if I had proof that you too were a homosexual and had sent me a private email wishing to be "fuck budies," I guess it would be the truth right? Giles22


 * LOL! I'm not sure that even merits a response. By the way, how's the IP check going? Eleemosynary 00:51, 12 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I am starting to get very suspicious that LanceManion1973 is a sock puppett for Eleemosynary. Is there any way to do an IP check on this?  Giles22


 * Lance, he's figured us out! I absolutely insist Socky run the IP check! :) Eleemosynary 23:53, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I don't even know what a sockpuppet is. Feel free to run an IP check.  I'm just a dork with a computer.  Also, because it's printed in one book that means it should be accepted as fact?  I guess the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth had the goods on John Kerry then.     LanceManion1973


 * Good example. The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth are very much a part of the John Kerry page, and their claims are the subject of one book: Unfit For Command.  One may choose not to believe Brock, but the information is properly sourced and (as argued ad nauseaum) germane to  Drudge and suitable for Wikipedia.  There are also more sources than the Brock book about Drudge's sexuality, but Blinded By The Right is a very good one. Eleemosynary 01:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

My vote is yes, per my comments above. There are two men who have stated publicly, one in a published book (Brock) and the other in a radio interview (actor Alec Baldwin) that Drudge flirted with them. That's two unrelated first-person published sources, in addition to the book written by MSNBC gossipista Jeanette Walls in her 2000 book Dish: The Inside Story on the World of Gossip. Flirting is not sex, but the topic is germane to Drudge's public persona and work, and appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Lisasmall 17:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Reports of flirting do not make someone gay. Did these sources claim to have sex with him? Allow me to relate a bit of personal experience: I am not gay, and never have been. For several years, I was a well-known regular at a gay bar. It was the only decent dance club in town. I even filled in a few times as a go-go dancer. I probably even could have been percieved as flirting a little bit with some of the other regulars. When you hang out with gay people alot, you tend to pick up some of the body language and social behavior traits. Some people at the bar thought that I was gay, but most of them knew that I was not. The only thing the inclusion of the information in this article shows (if written in a NPOV and verifiable way) is that Drudge is much more tolerant of gays and their lifestyle than he has been given credit for. Of course, we can't have THAT. So to satisfy everyone, we should just leave the info out, because it does not verify anything about his sexuality. Crockspot 16:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC) further comment I should add that some of this discussion may be moot. It predates WP:BLP, which overrides any consensus vote. Negative unsourced or poorly sourced information, original research, and POV in articles about living persons is to be aggressively removed without discussion, and exempted from the 3RR rule. The reinsertion of that material is grounds for blocking. As a member of the Living People Patrol, I intend to enforce that policy in this article as aggressively as the policy calls for. Crockspot 17:12, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

No (although its not a vote its concensus). See this is not correct. It is not germaine. Specualation of flirting does not suddenly become germaine simply because Drudge engages in gossip. What was the nature of the flirting? What were the exact words? Where when? These are all important to know before it is included in an encyclopedic article. The Wikipedia is not for speculation of sexuality. If Drudge did actually have sex with a man who admits it and or he admits it himself or he admits that he likes men... then I could possibly see inclusion. However, even then I am not sure his sexuality is germaine at all. Should we go through and make a tag to put on articles of anyone who has ever gossiped or criticized sexual act or sexuality at all? Also, after reading through these comments it is quite clear that many people want this included to "out" Drudge because they believe this will hurt his standing with conservative readers. Making an ad hominem attack on a living person based on the un sourced possibility that they are gay does not seem to be encyclopedic. I vote NO (although its concensus not democracy here) and suggest that it is removed unless we can find a good reason to keep it and specific (not just oh its in such and such a book - actually what the text says) sourced instances where Drudge "acted gay." !@#Rtrev 17:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

My personal opinion\
As I'm giving my official opinion here, I suppose I should admit that I consider myself a Democrat. However, I have no problem with Drudge, and don't really care to out him, as it may or may not be. Heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, asexual, it honestly doesn't matter to me, and I don't think it should matter to anyone. But, properly sourced information on whether he may be gay or not belongs in the article, in my opinion. My reasoning is that his sexuality IS debated by some, and is perhaps one of the more controversial things surrounding him. It's not speculation because it's a big deal, it's speculation because people make a big deal of it, and like speculation of Kennedy's affairs with various women, it's not done by a primary source, and I'm sure nearly everyone in the Kennedy family would deny most or all of the allegations. Nevertheless, it's reported in a few areas, and done so in a way that is neutral. That's what we should do here. Ral315 (talk) 09:11, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * The problem is that accusation is made by a obvious political hack to take advantage of the fact that some of Drudge's readers would not read him if they thought he was a homosexual. It is a cynical attempt to use something that shouldn't be an issue, and make it into a smear. There isn't any complementary information except this one accusation. If Drudge is so brazen to send such an email, there should be others he propositioned in the same manner, so far there are none. One can't be a homosexual in private, it takes more than one person! Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:28, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Not quite, Dominick. Brock is a political hack?  That's your opinion, and detracts from the force of your argument.  Many would consider Drudge a political hack.  I doubt you do.  Brock's  right-leaning work during his anti-Anita-Hill days and his left-leaning work now at Media Matters would place him squarely in the center, should you average everything together. :) Your assumption that Drudge's readers would not visit his website if they thought he was gay is based on... what, exactly?  The idea that Drudge's readers are anti-gay?  That's another opinion, and rather doubtful.  Brock's account is not good enough for you, so you wish to see a host of e-mails.  Yet, David Cohen's account of dating Drudge does not come from Brock.  That's another source.  However, something tells me that no matter how much sourced information is provided, you'll find a reason to discredit it.  Your argument that, if Drudge sent Brock an email, it follows that he should have sent many more emails to other men is specious and illogical.  And one can easily be a homosexual in private.  Many homosexuals are closeted and non-practicing, both on the right and left.  The Brock material is sourced, relevant, and should stay.  Wikipedia is not about a whitewash, nor about building arguments based solely on opinion.  Eleemosynary 00:06, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

They are both hacks, granted. Most everyone in politics has an axe to grind. There are some arguemnts that detract from class in politics, if there ever was such a thing. One, IMHO, is going after a political figures kids, the second is sexual preference or proclivities. This isn't about right, left or center, it is about being factual. Cohen as a source is in the same boat. Putting a date in a place with a third party perhaps seeing them there. That would be pretty iron clad. If a man is brazen enough to proposition another man, logically, they should be doing the same thing to others. There is nothing special about the working relationship with Drudge to lend credence there was a secial confidence. If a mad would proposition an casual friend he would probably have done it in the past with other people. Claiming one could be a homosexual in private is not something your would confirm. Do not tell me what I will think that is simply rude, I don't have time for rude people. Dominick (ŤαĿĶ) 12:44, 14 November 2005 (UTC)


 * You're putting up a stonewall. Backed by tortured logic and a rather skewed view of homosexuality.  It won't wash. Eleemosynary 16:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

I am a major fan of Matt Drudge. I have read his page for a very long time, and I listen to his Sunday night talk shows. I have spoken to Matt once following the revelation of Clinton's adultery with Monica Lewinsky. It is my opinion that Matt has become a major celebrity not unlike any person in Hollywood, therefore, gossip about Matt is to be expected. But, lets discuss the facts as we know them: There are claims that Matt is gay. At least one person has said he dated Matt. Matt has said on his radio show that he is not gay.

Is it wrong to discuss Matt's sexuality based upon the claims others have openly made about their time spent with Matt? Wouldn't that be "reporting the facts" rather than speculation?

I believe that we should discuss anything and everything openly. The problem comes when we start to label speculation, rumors, and our own point of view as fact. Include a section on Matt that has the facts as we know them regarding his sexuality, and then another section where those facts are discussed and mixed with personal opinions. That way, the reader draws his own conclusions after seeing both the facts and speculation or other opinons.

It is my view that this preserves free speech and is both a fair and accurate way to deal with this subject.

72.177.200.85 17:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC) My name is Tracey. My email is tracey12_12atyahoo.com

=
======================================================

Linking News Sites, Matt Drudge Creates Internet Success.
The link did not work thats why I reverted. Apparently I am not the only one. I just tried it and it is working again. Dominick (TALK) 21:41, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Did you notice the other link didn't work? Rkevins82 23:30, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Comments from anon
An anon posted these comments on the article page (-- LV (Dark Mark)  00:38, 24 February 2006 (UTC)) :
 * Only a few days ago, there was considerable discussion on this page about Drudge's lifestyle. Matt has said on his Sunday night talkshow that he is not gay, however, it was reported here that at least one author wrote that he dated Matt Drudge.  Are these claims just an attempt to harm Matt's reputation?  That would seem very possible considering Matt's obviously conservative values.  But the truth is still unconfirmed.


 * Matt could certainly put to rest these rumors if he introduced to the world the woman he is currently seeing. Reportedly, she lives in London which is why Matt has spent considerable time in England over the past year.

Hasn't updated since thursday
Drudge hasn't updated his page in several days. Has he died in a plane crash or something?


 * If only. I kid, I kid. Bds yahoo 17:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Political donation disputed?
One of the external links states that he gave $2,358 to the "RNC REPUBLICAN NATIONAL STATE ELECTIONS COMMITTEE (soft-money donation)" in 2001. The article says that Matt Drudge disputes this. What's the evidence that Drudge disputes this? Assuming that's correct, how can he since it appears to be based on FEC filings (indeed they included a scanned image of the relevant doc). Crust 19:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've gone ahead and deleted the reference to Drudge disputing his donation. Obviously if anyone can document Drudge disputing this and preferably his grounds for doing so, we should swithc it back. Crust 14:55, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradictory, Uncited Statistic

 * Combined with his radio show and subtracting his relatively minor server costs, the magazine estimated that Drudge grossed $800,000 a year with his simple website.

Huh? Is this sentence assessing Drudge's income strictly from the website, as the last clause suggests, or is it including his income from the radio show, as the first clause suggests?


 * I fixed it up for ya. Hope this helps. :-) -- LV (Dark Mark)  15:20, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Drudge is a gossip
He is not merely an "internet personality." He should be noted as a gossip in the opening paragraph, because that is primarily what he is. Thus I made the change accordingly. What do you all think? Stanley011 19:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsourcable statement?
In the "Persona and criticism" section, it states: "However, critics regard Drudge's contribution to journalism as questionable, saying that the only stories he actually breaks are completely conceived, researched, funded, and written by other reporters[citation needed]." I have made a diligent attempt to source this statement, but all searches ultimately lead back to this wiki article. (other encyclopedias have copied the statement from here). This is a problem with wikis in general: An unsourced statement is made, other wikis pick it up, and a "fact" is born in wikiality. If someone can source this statemtent, then by all means please do so. Otherwise, it may be time to remove it. The paragraph will need to be rewritten for flow though. Crockspot 03:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I put the there for a reason. I can't find it eaither. I am also having trouble finding the "walter cronkite of our generation" quote. I say first order of business, barring a citation, to delete the paraphased quote. Then if no one can find the "cronkite" one delete that. !@#Rtrev 06:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Found the Cronkite statement... need a page number though. !@#Rtrev 06:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Citations converted to php
It was tedious, but I converted all the citations to php format, with ref names. I think. If I missed any, sorry. See WP:Footnotes for how to use the php format, and WP:CTT for the citation templates to put in them. I would be nice if people continued with that format, but if you don't, I may come along and convert them for you. It gives you a nice list of all the citations in proper format at the end of the article. - Crockspot 23:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Eggman reference
I believe an entire section for this reference gives undue weight to the importance of this nickname. Personally, I have never heard him called eggman until this section appeared recently, and I have followed drudge for years. At best, it merits a line or two, not an entire section, unless multiple secondary sources referring to him as such can be found and provided. One article calling him eggman does not make a notable nickname worthy of a significant part of the article. - Crockspot 15:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

When is a statement "unsourced"? Re: Published homosexuality accusations
In reference to the man's sexuality, a topic clearly germane since he has recently called children, who were the subject of predatory pedophilic advances, "beasts", what can be considered sourced and unsourced?

My impression of this page is that a few right wing editors, who have gone to great lengths to obtain banning powers, are essentially gagging the legitimate inclusion of material about this man on this page. If anyone had to write a biography of Matt Drudge, they would absolutely have to include the facts I state below, or else risk writing an incomplete and inaccurate biography. Why then should we exclude these FACTS here:

If these edits are not allowed by the obsessively interested editors Giles22 and Crockspot (Matt Drudge in disguise?), perhaps this needs to be escalated to a dispute forum?


 * When adding negative info to the bio of a living person, we have to be extra careful. I suggest you all reread WP:BLP. The discussion at Wikipedia talk:Reliable sources may also be instructive. Focusing on relatively trivial negative information, whether sourced or not, can be a violation of WP:BLP, as it gives undue weight (in this case) to rumor and opinion. Administrators' noticeboard also discusses the personal legal liability of editors who add negative information into articles about living people. - Crockspot 17:22, 23 October 2006 (UTC) PS. If I was Matt Drudge in disguise, I certainly wouldn't be wasting my time on Wikipedia. I would be tending to my own website, and spending fistfuls of cash at IKEA. - Crockspot 17:24, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Crockspot, I've reviewed the guidelines and rules to which to link, and I still cannot see the problem. The sources for those statements are two published (not self-published) books and a national radio show. These are highly verifiable sources! Crockspot, your own personal wiki page states that you have a conservative agenda in your edits, and I believe you are letting this agenda interfere with your judgement. Skoppensboer 17:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * You are mischaractarizing the statements on my user page. I say just the exact opposite. Assume good faith, and do not issue personal attacks. My edit history is filled with instances of me taking action to protect people of all stripes from libel, including Michael Moore and Cindy Sheehan just yesterday. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a breaking news organization, or a gossip rag. The sources being cited do nothing to verify that Matt Drudge is gay, they only push an opinion that he may be gay. It is homophobic gossip to be pushing this inclusion. It is trivial and unimportant to this article, and is only being added to take a swipe at the subject. Being seen in gay bars, and even being percieved to be flirting, does not mean someone is gay. As I have stated before, I have been in gay bars, and some may have perceived my friendlyness as flirting. I am certainly not gay. All this tells me about Matt Drudge is that he is more tolerant of the gay lifestyle than he is being given credit for, and certainly more tolerant than those on the left who want to keep pushing this meme. - Crockspot 17:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Whoa! Drudge's sexual orientation is highly relevant, since he comments on the sexuality of others, characterizing under-age children as "beasts" when they confront their closet homosexual pedophile abuser! This is not trivial stuff, and not homophobia! Perhaps your unwillingness to see this matter publicly disclosed is a form of homophobia? In addition, you cannot characterise this info as "gossip". Did or didn't Baldwin say those things? Did or didn't Drudge threaten to sue him? These are matters of public record, for heaven sake! We're not making stuff up here, or repeating rumors we heard at the local supermarket. If these sources do not verify that he may be or actually is gay, what verification would you require? Do we need a video of him performing fellatio to sway you? Do we need Drudge to come out of the closet and confirm it first? Let's review: 1) Drudge goes to gay bars, 2) he has more than one reliable source go on record about his gay advances and emails, and 3) he is informally infamous around town as someone who cruises for young men and likes to perform unusual sexual acts (alluded to on this page above). He's also unmarried at 40. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, talks like a duck (ha!), and smells like a duck ... it's probably a duck (your peregrinations in gay bars notwithstanding). Skoppensboer 18:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * "'Whoa! Drudge's sexual orientation is highly relevant, since he comments on the sexuality of others...'"
 * This is one of the worst arguments I have seen made on the Wikipedia for the inclusion of gossip. OK, given, Drudge comments on the sexuality of various persons.  But how exactly does that transfer into making the Wikipedia a gossip rag?!  The standards of The Drudge Report are not the standards of the Wikipedia.  I have never understood why people are so hell bent on accusing Drudge of being gay while not pushing it in articles of other possibly gay celebrities.  Should we start labeling all personalities as gay/not gay/possibly gay?  Perhaps even a template    "The living person featured in this article may or not be a closeted homosexual"    "The living person featured in this article is most likely gay." Rtrev 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You and your fellow travellers keep using the word "gossip". How are the published recollections of other celebrities "gossip"? Shouldn't Drudge be suing them if that were the case? Since their printed recollections or allegations have gone unchallenged by Drudge, why should we resile from reporting that fact? Skoppensboer 19:11, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Didn't you just mention that Drudge DID threaten to sue someone? But irregardless, the lack of a lawsuit is not a confirmation. I am 45, and unmarried. I have gone to gay bars a lot of times, and have many gay friends. Some people have even thought I was gay by association, but I am not gay. I just happen to have gay friends, and like a good dance club. Consider that I am also protecting YOU, as well as the subject of this article. As is quite clear in the link above that I posted, the legal counsel of the Wikimedia Foundation considers each editor legally responsible for their own edits. If Drudge decides to sue Wikipedia for libel, Wikipedia is going to point the finger at you, and provide Drudge's lawyers with every bit of information they have on hand that will assist in identifying you. If Drudge admits that he is gay, or we have someone claiming in a reliable source that he had gay sex with Drudge, then you might have a leg to stand on. Otherwise, you're abusing Wikipedia. Crockspot 19:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, he threatened Baldwin, but never followed through. Did he sue the two authors involved, Walls and Brock? No. You see, what irks me mightily here is that these books and the allegations they contain are actual FACTS of the man's life! Wikipedia (and I) cannot be sued for recording historical facts here. I'm not reporting he is gay or not gay, I'm simply reporting that other people have alleged he is gay in published books that have not been legally challenged by Drudge. Can't you see that? By the way, your constant reference to your own somewhat odd habits is of no relevance here. Please desist. Skoppensboer 20:07, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I am simply showing by personal example that your above argument does not prove anything about anyone's sexuality. As Rtrev so succinctly puts it below, this is a non-notable bit of trivia that is sourced by less-than-solid sources. As a member of the WP:BLPP, I judge it to be a violation of WP:BLP, and I intend to take whatever action is necessary to keep that information out. Crockspot 20:23, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * This insistence on the triviality and insubstantial nature of the topic (despite the obviously enormous interest in it - just look at this page!), combined with your stated intention to keep it off the page at any cost, bespeaks a highly slanted view of this affair and a possible abuse of your powers here. Skoppensboer 20:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, it's this kind of doctrinaire and biased editorship that lends credence to the need for a better version of wikipedia. Roll on Citizendium. When actual events in a person's life (accusations of hypocritically hidden sexuality, for instance) are expunged from wikipedia because editors with agendas deem that it runs counter to their view chosen of the universe, we have a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Skoppensboer (talk • contribs)


 * Well I think before you make any more ad hominem attacks remember to WP:AGF. What I am wary of is your insistence on labeling homosexuals whether or not it is verifiable.  What you have is a few accusations and a denial by the man who would know best.  So at the very best the fact that Drudge is gay is questionable.  Also "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article" (from WP:BLP).  I contend that Drudge's homosexuality is marginally notable, irrelevant, and not well documented other than in the couple sources that are less reliable considering Drudge himself denies the accusation.  I would also contend that a lot of the accusations of homosexuality tossed at Drudge are meant to be biased (you can even see that here in this discussion previously).  Take a look again at WP:BLP and if you reall really really feel the need to claim someone is a homosexual (which he has denied) based on two sources (I believe Walls quoted Brock... correct me if I am wrong) both of which have been denied by Drudge and he even threatened to sue Baldwin.  All of this being beside the point because no one has yet to answer why this nugget of dubious information is notable (you might make a case for this) or relevant at all (this is the case that has never been logically made).  It also smacks of a certain amount of anti-gay sentiment that frankly makes me uncomfortable seeing on the Wikipedia. Rtrev 20:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but how do you construe my proposed edit as "labeling"? How is reporting the facts of a person's life (books referring to his sexuality) labeling? You seem to be having a lot of trouble thinking this through logically. You are also wrong about the notability and relevance of his sexuality. Drudge is a conservative commentator with a lot of motivation to hide his sexuality from his conservative readership. Perhaps he is another Foley, closeted away. Is it our duty to help him in this endeavour? Why is his sexuality notable? Easy. He makes explicit and implicit moral judgements about people and their sexuality. The public deserves to know where he's coming from on this topic. Maybe they'd see his defence of Foley, (COMMENT REMOVED BY CROCKSPOT PER WP:BLP), in a different light if they knew he was accused of being a closet homosexual. Drudge made huge play of Kerry and Edwards touching each other during the last presidential campaign, implying they were girly-men, even queer. Again, anyone who makes public such aspersions can justifiable be scrutinized on these ground himself. Skoppensboer 20:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Your comments make it obvious that you do not understand what Wikipedia is, and what Wikipedia is not. And now you are slandering Foley, after the FBI has admitted that they can find no evidence whatsoever of him ever having sex with a minor. Bigots come in all political stripes, and liberal bigots seem to be the most disgusting. - Crockspot 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Comment I removed the slander of Foley above, and issued a BLP warning to Skoppensboer. Crockspot 20:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to defend Mr Foley, for in so doing you say more about yourself than I ever could. Skoppensboer 20:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * No, I am defending Wikipedia from your irresponsible, prejudicial, and defamatory comments, per WP:BLP. You just don't get it, and I doubt you ever will. You really should be ashamed of yourself. You have very convincingly argued for us that you are not editing in good faith, and your intent is to do harm. - Crockspot 20:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Newsflash, Crockspot, you cannot DEFAME anyone by reporting factual events, as I have in the box above. Re-read at what I wrote there, and tell me honestly, is that defamation? Is it irresponsible? Is it inaccurate? Is it prejudicial? No, on all counts. All it says is that some people have published or broadcast accusations that Drudge is a closeted homosexual, and that he has denied it. The information is relevant because Mr Drudge sets himself up as a moral arbiter when he accuses children in sexual cases of being "beasts" (to quote just one example). QED. Skoppensboer 20:54, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a data point here, a Google search of the phrase "foley pedophile" brings up over 1,000,000 hits. Skoppensboer 21:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you should read WP:V really quickly. Rtrev 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not an accusation, simply a fact that over one million pages contain those words together. Don't leap to conclusions, like the one where you insist that reporting the accusations of others is the same as accusing. Skoppensboer 21:15, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And it's not just the two books and one radio broadcast making these claims. Of course, you all surely know about the Washington landscaper, David Cohen, who confirmed to Daily News columnist George Rush that he did, in fact, date Drudge, as Walls had reported. (I updated box above with this too). Skoppensboer 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Drudge Implies Gayness in Others
Last section is borked for some reason, so now this new section ...


 * Here is why Matt Drudge's sexuality is germane. He influenced a whole election with this nasty stuff:

Now tell me, wouldn't you want to know if the man making that report had been accused of being gay himself? The wonderful thing about the wikipedia is that it's one of the few places you can find that out. Skoppensboer 22:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One more compelling reason to include the "trivia" about Drudge's alleged homosexuality is this. He ran the headline: ABC News Reporter Who Filed Troops Complaint Story — Openly Gay Canadian You don't know why that's highly offensive to gays and demands that his own sexuality be recorded on wikipedia? Then you should read this. Thank you. Skoppensboer 22:43, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yawn. We've been down this road before.  You dig yourself deeper with every statement you make, revealing your politically driven agenda of gay-baiting and character assasination that really has no place in this article. Giles22 23:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Now it's "gay-baiting" when I point out that Drudge has insulted all gays? Your reading comprehension stinks. Skoppensboer 00:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Jewish and Conservative: where's the bad faith?
Ho hum, so can we have consensus that he's Jewish (from a Jewish family - you do not need to be a practising, observant Jew to be classified as Jewish) and Conservative (has donated money to the GOP and the entire slant of his site is pro-GOP). I suppose the Drudge-protection bots here will contest even these points. Yes, I know he claims he's a Libertarian, but let's get real here. You make wikipedia a laughing stock when even kids know that Drudge's complete shtick is pro-Republican but we aren't allowed to say it here. Skoppensboer 02:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Does he consider himself Jewish? Are there citations for his religious beliefs?  He describes himself as an independent and a libertarian.  Does that make him Republican?  Do you have credible citations for his personal politics?  It seems you have an axe to grind and that is not for the Wikipedia.  If you want to label people as Jew neo-conservatives be my guest.  But you happen to be walking down a slippery and potentially derogatory slope.  Please build consensus for your additions if you want to keep them. Rtrev 03:34, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jewish is a race and culture, as well as a religion. As such, what he considers himself to be is not relevant, since it's his genes that count here. The wikipedia is full of people labelled Jewish simply because their ancestry is Jewish, and few, if any, have been asked if they "consider themselves" Jewish. I did not use the word "neo-conservative", so I'm not sure why you do, unless you are building a straw man once again. I do know that MD has 1) voted Republican and 2) donated money to the Republican party (I can get sources if required). That makes him Conservative. Skoppensboer 04:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Really, this has been a rather shameful display of bias and poor judgement by the wiki-ites here with veto powers. I have been accused of making stuff up, of having an axe to grind, of wanting to label someone as a "Jew" and a neocon, and of gay-baiting - all false and vicious libel against me. The descriptions in published books of MD's behaviours and predilections are dismissed as trivial slander, when living people (Brock, Cohen) either had sex with him or were propositioned by him, on the record. Cohen said he'd sign an affidavit to that effect. Brock has the emails. The dearth of countervailing voices here, the lack of people without conservative agendas, is appalling. What's happened, has wikipedia been taken over by Bush-bots? It seems likely. Since all edits that cast what may be construed by the most myopic editors as a poor light on our GOP white knight are summarily and haughtily dismissed, with only a cursory attempt to "debate" the issue (including veiled threats of legal action, personal attacks on me, the building of an army of straw men and wilfully deliberate misinterpretation of what I have attempted to do), I am left with no alternative but to publish a web page elsewhere covering these issues. Skoppensboer 05:42, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently the webpage is not necessary, since someone else has done it already: Matt Drudge is Gay Skoppensboer 19:59, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, and speaking of the fact that everything you read on the Internet is to be beleived, have you heard that Elvis is still alive? www.elvislives.net Giles22 20:07, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think people have just seen your homophobic and highly political agenda for what it is, despite being couched in terms of righteous indignation. Thay may be one of the reasons you are being largely ignored or at the very least not considered part of a legitimate debate. Giles22 12:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And your and Crackpot's agenda's are not political? Pshaw! Homophobic? Not at all. How do you know I'm not homosexual? As I said, your behaviour is shameful. Skoppensboer 13:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would enjoy editing Gerry Studds, someone who actually had gay sex with a minor. That article could use some of your "skills". I'm not sure if he was also a Jew, so you may have to wing it. Plus, he just passed away, so no pesky BLP rules. - Crockspot 14:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, you provide a perfect example of a straw man argument. "A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position". More shameful stuff from a conservative crackpot. Skoppensboer 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I consider this to be a dead line of discussion if this is the level you would like to work at (see here). Also, publishing a webpage elsewhere with this "fact" would be a wonderful alternative.  In advance, thank you for contributing to the richness and diversity of opinion on the internet by becoming a content provider. Rtrev 13:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Once again, you implicitly call people liars by denigrating statements (written or recorded) as facts with inverted commas. Shameful. Who gives you the right to be an arbiter of the truth, & to exclude biographical details from a wikipedia page? You have not once been able to refute the existence of the gay sex and gay propositioning claims made by others in the public sphere, and these are claims that have not been subject to legal challenge, yet you still deem them unworthy of inclusion here, even though they shed a very interesting light on the character of the subject. Again, shameful. Skoppensboer 15:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

You describe the actions of the majority of the editors of this page as: "False and viscious"; "Appaling"; and "Shameful". This curious use of invective neither legitimizes your opinions nor endears your arguments to other editors. It is bizarre to see you seeking refuge in an irrational moral highground, while totally contradicting this with your editing behavior and constant attacks on other editors. Giles22 15:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A new line of discussion. Skoppensboer supports the claim that Drudge is conservative with two arguments: 1) Drudge has donated to Republican candidates and 2)Drudge's site is pro-GOP. These 'may' support the claim that he is Republican, but not that he is conservative.
 * To head-off a counter-argument, though the GOP article lists conservative as the primary ideology, there certainly are others in the party (libertarians being one of the most vocal). I don't care what Drudge is, just that it is properly represented. Why not note that he claims to be libertarian but... and then you would need to provide evidence that he is not libertarian, but conservative. Rkevins82 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The Drudge Report is pro GOP according to whom? Let's not start straying off into original research as well. Drudge claims that he is Libertarian, a claim which is sourced in the article. Frankly, any suggestion Skipperbopper has is now viewed with a jaundiced eye. - Crockspot 16:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC) I should also add that concluding that someone is a Republican based upon their political contributions qualifies as WP:OR, and is not allowed. Crockspot 16:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He's a Libertarian the same way he's heterosexual - only in his own fantasy of himself. In real life, he sleeps with men and donates money to the GOP, and votes GOP - all these FACTS documented reliably. There are no donations to the Libertarian Party of America that anyone has heard about. Skoppensboer 21:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC) And let me add that anyone with even a tiny scintilla of intelligence can see from the content of his "report" which way he leans politically. Skoppensboer 21:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Drudge called "gay" on TV Skoppensboer 22:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ahh with such an unbiased, professional, and neutral source on the issue how could I disagree? Rtrev 05:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I was simply pointing out that his sexuality is one 1) general public knowledge, not the highly questionable issue you seem to regard it to be, and that 2) it is indeed very important in regard to his work and character, as the commentators on that clip prove. That you fail to understand this surely denotes a lacuna due to your own views, and has nothing to do with wikipedia standards. Skoppensboer 16:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Skoppensboer, I wish you could stay civil here. The argument has a little more to it than you are saying. You are dodging the issue of his claiming to be libertarian (not necessarily the party - it is an ideology and party). It is quite reasonable for a libertarian to donate to Republicans, just as a socialist might donate to a Democrat. Rkevins82 05:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * He claims to be a Libertarian, but he also said in 2005 "I’m a conservative ..." (see ref on his page to Landesman article). So here we have a case of someone actually calling themselves "a conservative", and yet the reverso-bots here won't allow it onto the page. Sad. Skoppensboer 15:27, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * First, you don't need to put the * at the front of your talk page posts. So, I don't have any problem with citing him calling himself a conservative or a libertarian, so long as both are cited. I doubt that there are bots reversing your changes, though. As I said in my last post, you've shown no evidence that demonstrates he is a Republican, only that he has recently supported some Republicans. That is probably as much as is possible, unless his voter registration shows his affiliation. Florida's elections office allows registration without declaring a party.  Primaries are closed, but one can vote in the general election without declaring. Rkevins82 05:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with the page as it stands as regards his Republicanism (donates, votes), but I do think that he should be put into the category American Conservatives, since he himself claims membership of that category. Do we agree? Skoppensboer 06:55, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, his statement about voting Republican in 2004 and his donation records are fine. I do not think that obviates that he is a Republican.  Also, the multiple instances of his claiming to be a libertarian make the categorization problematic (I do not like that sort of category to begin with). Just so long as we are not conflating Republicanism and conservatism anymore. Rkevins82 07:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I'll replace his categorization as a conservative, not conflating it with Republicanism. On another issue, why was this page archived in toto? Surely only the inactive (older) sections of the page should have been archived? What is the exact policy? Skoppensboer 11:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Archive requested
Can someone archive this talk page? It is getting long. Thanks in advance. Giles22 22:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 20:37, 2 May 2016 (UTC)