Talk:Matt Drudge/Archive 2

Archived
Old discussions of the Matt Drudge page are now archived. Giles22 13:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is surely not right to archive the entire page at once, including active discussions. For new readers here is the bulk of the discussion Skoppensboer 15:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In fact, from the archive page at WP: "...it is best to avoid archiving in the midst of an active discussion so that the full context of the discussion is together." It'd be nice if you followed protocol. Skoppensboer 16:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah that was a bit jarring. But que sera sera I guess. --Rtrev 17:03, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Reversion of sourced data
I added that he voted republican and that he is a conservative, both linked to relevant articles as sources. These changes were based on Drudge's own statements. There is no better source. Why were these changes reverted? Skoppensboer 14:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * To wit: "I’m a conservative and want to pay less taxes. And I did vote Republican at the last election." Interview with Cosmo Landesman. Skoppensboer 15:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok good source. I would put it in but would use more of the quote, which seems to give a good idea of his politics.
 * "“...I’m not a right-wing Republican,” he replies without batting an eye. “I’m a conservative and want to pay less taxes. And I did vote Republican at the last election. But I’m more of a populist.”"
 * I think that is a little better for NPOV and more descriptive. Too many people confuse "conservative" and "Republican," and in many cases the distinction is not that important.  In Drudge's case I think it is. --Rtrev 17:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome to include the full quote, if you can find a way to do it elegantly in context. It could be unwieldy to dump large quotes into sentences. Skoppensboer 17:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Alternatively, his claims of being a libertarian should be sourced (and he can be added to the category). Rkevins82 17:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a citation for his libertarianism. It is in the "Persona and Criticism" section.  --Rtrev 17:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Rtrev, your latest edit discards valid, sourced data on political contributions that's been a part of this page for some time (not my insertion, btw). Skoppensboer 17:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * My reasoning on that is this: The section it is in is trying to define his politics (although it is under the weak heading "Persona and Criticism").  A one time donation out of context is not meaningful or notable. Has he ever made any other contribs and to any other parties?  There is no information on why he made the donation.  That being said using that to define his politics is WP:OR and I fear that using the negatively connotated term "soft money" instead of simply "donation" was meant to push a POV.  If there is consensus to put it back in another form I would be fine with that. --Rtrev 17:53, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * So add a section on his politics and re-insert sans the pejorative "soft". This page is poor compared to the pages on other people like him, for example Michael Savage's long, detailed page. Expand this page, more headings. Skoppensboer 17:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a "Populist" at all

 * "I'm more of a populist." Does he even know what Populism means? MD consistently supports conservative views, not populist views. For instance, polls show that more than six in 10 Americans believe that Roe should be upheld, meaning most Americans are Pro-Choice, while MD is Pro-Life. That's just one example of his conservatism and how he is not "representing or extolling the common person, the working class" as a true populist would. I know this is argumentative, but to what extent does WP allow people to define themselves in a way that suits their commercial agenda, and to what extent can/should WP objectively describe someone according to their actual actions and opinions? Skoppensboer 17:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * "...does WP allow people to define themselves in a way that suits their commercial agenda, and to what extent can/should WP objectively describe someone according to their actual actions and opinions?" No it does not but his statement of his own politics is just as valid as other assessments of his politics such as the study that found The Report "left of center" and other sources that claim he is "Republican."  The job of the WP is to state the verifiable, notable information out there and let the reader decide. --Rtrev 17:40, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok then, but does the page highlight that this is a controversial subject, or give carte blanche to the subject's selling of himself? Perhaps we need to insert some text to show that almost every true left-of-center American sees MD as right-of-center? Skoppensboer 17:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Drudge sees himself as a "populist", but actual populism is akin to socialism, the very antithesis of Drudge's political philosophy. I think letting him get away with this blatant misrepresentation is not quite the right thing for an encyclopedia. populism (n) : the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite Shouldn't we point out the lack of logical consistency? Skoppensboer 17:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't that would be something that was more appropriate for the anti-Drudge website you are supposed to be starting up? Giles22 17:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I'm talking about a good encyclopaedia that highlights logical inconsistencies. Skoppensboer 18:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * His claimed populism may work under definitions 2 or 4 in your link from the Random House Unabridged Dictionary. And, no, it is not the job of a good encyclopedia to point out inconsistencies (logical?). They may be interesting, but they are original research and often falter into being POV. If there is an excellent article arguing against Drudge's populism (and the issue oh his being, or not being, a populist is all that important), then include it, not your thoughts on the matter. Rkevins82 18:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Look at WK's own article on populism and especially American populism. Lou Dobbs is defined as a true populist, and I'd have to agree. What do conservatives think of populism? From WP page - "Conservatives such as Jonah Goldberg are skeptical of populism, as evidenced in the title of his article in National Review: "Pick Up Your Own Crap: The crazy denunciations and demands of populist forces must be put down by conservatives." That says it all. But whatever, let the guy call himself whatever he likes, even if it's a blatant lie, and let it stand. Skoppensboer 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Attn Skop...everyone fails to live up to their own labels...Progressives that want prosperity thru higher taxes, Libertarians that don't want toll roads, Christians that don't want collectivized alms. Republicans, Chamber of Commerce and Unions who use the 1860 argument 'if you end slavery, our economy will crash' when defending illegal alien sanctuary. Who again is the privileged elite Drudge represents ? Drudge is an equal opportunity annoyance, that's why he's of value. Hrothgar 23:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Great point. Drudge may want to pay less taxes, but he isnt shy about putting an embarrassing tidbit about Bush or the Republicans under a flashing light on his page. Equal opportunity annoyance is right. Caper13 01:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

M. Savage citation
Michael Savage is not a minor, B list talk show host. From WP page on talk radio: "according to A.C. Nielsen, the top four programs are those of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Michael Savage, and Glenn Beck." It is definitely notable that 2 of the 4 top radio shows constantly reference Drudge's page. Skoppensboer 18:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Never heard of Glenn Beck. I don't think you are suggesting that those are the only two of the top 4 talk radio shows who make frequent references to Drudge's stories. I would expect they all do. In that case, if you really feel you must add an additional source who references Drudge, wouldn't Sean Hannity be a better choice if he is the second most popular talk radio host? Hannity apparently makes quite a few references to Drudge. I looked on Google and I could neither find references to Drudge being Savage's primary source for his radio show, nor references to the two being friends. I did a similar search for Hannity and in the first listings there are pictures of the two together. Hannity would be a better choice, though I don't see the need to list anyone as evidence that Drudge is widely read and referenced. Drudge's ratings are not in dispute (see his website for hits...011,554,285 IN PAST 24 HOURS -367,989,733 IN PAST 31 DAYS -3,562,389,712 IN PAST YEAR. Entry referencing Limbaugh isn't vital to the article however it is more relevant because it could be argued that Limbaugh was the first to expose Drudge to a wide audience and this exposure catapulted his popularity forward. Please try to build consensus for this entry before reinserting it back into the article. If you want to enter Sean Hannity as a secondary source, I would go along with it, though I still question whether a secondary source is even necessary. Is that an acceptable compromise to you? Caper13 19:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Incidentally. You are marking your edits to this article as being minor. Please stop. These are not minor edits. If you are not actively marking your edits as minor, you may have it set to do so automatically in your preferences. Please check and turn this feature off. Please read Help:Minor Edit for guidelines on what changes are truly considered Minor Edits. Caper13 19:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Why not reference Hannity as well as Savage? I listen to Savage and he calls MD "my good friend" frequently, and almost daily states that he found this or that on MD's page. Go ahead and insert Hannity. As for my edits, I tend to mark them minor when I am simply inserting a comma, etc. But I see it is being inserted automagically. I'll watch that. Skoppensboer 19:26, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean, it is relevant and germane that MD is now the chief or major news source for most of conservative talk radio, obviously. Skoppensboer 19:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok. I altered the text to make the reference more general to indicate that Drudge is a major source for many major talk radio shows as well as in other media. We don't need to list each one. Anyone can click on the talk radio link and see who the major talk radio players are. Who the major talk radio players are isnt germane to an article on Matt Drudge. As to Michael Savage referring to Drudge as his good friend I have heard Susan Estritch refer to Drudge using the same verbiage. Doesnt mean they are friends. Caper13 19:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I re-included them as examples, no harm done, and it's useful inasmuch as it's illustrative of the type of shows that reference his page. As I said, despite being an avid radio listener, I have not heard Drudge openly used as a source elsewhere on talk radio with any regularity (even if it does go on surreptitiously). Skoppensboer 20:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Listing the individual shows clutters the article. I agreed to list Hannity as AN example in place of the lower rated Savage, because he was the highest rated talk show host you listed (after Limbaugh who is already mentioned in the previous sentence leaving the two top rated shows listed) but I dont support posting any further extension of the list of shows. Your additon of Savage has been reverted multiple times by multiple people which illustrates that no consensus exists to include him in this article. I tried to develop a compromise with you to accomodate your desire for an example of a current talk show who was a higher profile talk radio host (Hannity) than the lesser known Savage as that might be more acceptable to the group, but I did not agree to include an expanded list of shows. This is an article about Matt Drudge, not every talk show host or media outlet who references him. Persistent insertions of this material which is not supported by consensus will be seen as engaging in an edit war. You either have to come up with a valid explanation for why you need to specifically associate Matt Drudge with Michael Savage, or you will need to stop. Current evidence does not support any special link between Matt Drudge and Michael Savage over any other talk radio host who discusses stories currently being featured on, or that have been developed by, the Drudge Report. If Matt Drudge is such an influence on Michael Savage (and so far you have offered no proof of this), then the proper place to note this is on Michael Savage's page, not Matt Drudge's. Your admitted lack of knowledge of other radio talk shows who may or may not reference stories featured by drudge, is not proof of anything other than your unfamiliarity with other radio talk shows. A simple google search on Drudge brings back over 10 million hits. It is safe to say he is widely referenced by the media industry in general. Caper13 21:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How about this: remove Hannity and Savage, and insert "conservative talk radio" (it's virtually all conservative anyhow)? Skoppensboer 22:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Caper13, your sentence "Today Drudge is considered a major source in his own right with his postings frequently referenced on major talk radio shows as well as in other media" is horrible. Firstly, you repeat "major" too many times and you also make the mistake of calling Drudge's "posting s" a source in themselves, whereas it's the stories he roots around for and to which he posts links that are used by Hannity and Co, and not his own, rare original reporting/postings. Please rephrase, or I shall. Skoppensboer 22:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Skoppensboer, please be civil. Rkevins82 20:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Removed a major from the sentence at your request and altered text to make it clearer that the postings on the website are not all drudge exclusives. His site is a clearinghouse for breaking news from multiple outlets and often he only links to them. Drudge is considered "An important Source" though, because even if it is not an exclusive of his, it is his editorial judgement of what stories to link to that often set the agenda throughout other media outlets. Often, though obviously not always, his linking to a story imprints that news with a certain amount of importance based on his individual reputation for not only highlighting news, but also in breaking exclusive stories. Drudge is not just a breaker of news, but is often perceived as a filter for what news is noteworthy in his alternate function as an editor. 66.77.124.61 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a comment, but it is clear to me that just about everyone on radio gets their stories off of Drudge, whether they credit him or not. Even on the Montreal stations, you can listen to them talk, and scroll down The Drudge Report, and pretty much predict the next story that they will mention. Crockspot 21:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That could be coincidental. I listen to NPR and I've never heard him mentioned, but many of the same stories get covered by virtue of them being the major stories of the day. Bottom line is Hannity and Savage use his name very frequently. I would think Drudge would be proud to see that the biggest mouths on radio use him as top source. And you gotta admit, it's interesting that these top guys use him all the time, and say so! Skoppensboer 22:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * They may mention him quite a bit. However, it is WP:OR to say that from your or my observation.  If you would like to include it you need to find an verifiable article that states, "such and such people frequently use the Drudge report."  This is where OR gets a little grey.  I realize that it may seem like simple fact, but "often mention" is fairly subjective and OR. --Rtrev 00:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)


 * This article shouldnt exist to either please or damn Drudge. 66.77.124.61 00:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Matt Drudge or Drudge Report
If the above material belongs at all, wouldn't it be more appropriate in the Drudge Report article, rather than the Matt Drudge article? Giles22 22:45, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You may have a point. What exactly should be moved? It's actually quite difficult to disentangle Drudge from his one-page website. I would have thought it all belongs on one page. Skoppensboer 22:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to add a citation to the criticism that the UCLA paper received. The methods of the UCLA paper have been shown to contain problematic methodologies as shown by a U of Penn computer science professor. If the often cited UCLA paper is to be included, it's shortcomings should also be included. I already made a modification to the Drudge report page as well. Below is the added information.

The methods used to calculate this bias, however, have been shown to posses faults as explained by professor of Computer Science and the Director of Linguistic Data Consortium at the University of Pennsylvania Mark Liberman. Mark concludes his post saying he thinks "that many if not most of the complaints directed against G&M are motivated in part by ideological disagreement -- just as much of the praise for their work is motivated by ideological agreement. It would be nice if there were a less politically fraught body of data on which such modeling exercises could be explored."


 * I added the requested references, but cut the verbiage down to one sentence. The study itself only gets one sentence, this is merely criticism of the study, it shouldn't get three. This is an article about Drudge, not the study being criticised, so we shouldn't focus too much on the latter. AnonEMouse (squeak) 19:36, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Poorly sourced and potentially libelous edit
Stewiegfan. Please stop making the following edit into this article. ''Drudge, who is known in many quarters to be a closeted gay man, continues to state that he is in fact not gay, even pointing out to a UK newspaper that he was almost very close to marrying a girl at one time. However, many contrary facts have come to light including e-mails Drudge sent writer, David Brock, asking him for a date. Drudge continues to deny the fact that he is a homosexual.''

'''Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.'''

It has been, will continue to be, and you will be reported on the living persons biographies noticeboard if you continue. Please do not continue to insert the same unsourced, or poorly sourced, potentially libelous material into this article. Caper13 18:30, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not any more poorly sited than any thing else. There is certainly well published speculation about Matt Drudge's sexuality.  Nobody is saying he is definitely gay just that it is unclear and widely speculated. signed by 207.229.154.59 15:15, 9 November 2006


 * Yeah, and that is precisely why it is inappropriate to include it. See below: Caper13 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard. Caper13 23:56, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What rubbish! Something published in a well-known public figure's autobiography is not "unsourced or poorly sourced". Secondly, stating that a person is possibly homosexual, according to verifiable third party accounts, is not libellous, since homosexuality, like heterosexuality, is not a crime, so no harm accrues to Mr Drudge. We are not disclosing debate or accounts of whether or not Drudge is a pedophile, rapist or Peeping Tom. The fact that you view gayness as litigable tells us more about you than it does about the American legal system or the true definition of libel. Skoppensboer 21:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Your comments indicate to me that you don't understand the definition of libel. You also seem to have a hazy understanding on the meaning of verifiable if you want to apply that label to admitted liar David Brock's claim that he has an email from Drudge asking for a date. Let it go Caper13 21:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Homosexuality as something which may still qualify as "defamation per se" but it is becoming "defamation per quod" (meaning you have to prove actual damages to win a lawsuit, something a self-employed re-poster of internet links like Drudge could never do). In addition, Drudge would first have to sue Brock et al before suing WP for reporting their published recollections of salacious emails and dates. Skoppensboer 00:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Libel is something untrue (or unproven) which the subject can realistically claim has damaged his reputation. Unlike some people in this episode, I really couldn't care less whether Drudge is gay or not. According to him though, he is heterosexual, and as no proof has emerged otherwise, I'll just take him at his word and edit potentially libelous postings about him as I see fit and using WP:BLP as justification. I suggest you stop worrying about Drudge's sexual orientation and refrain from editing this article based on gossip. Caper13 02:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Caper13, you ask "Why are some people so worked up about Drudge's sexual orientation?" I'm not worked up about it per se, but rather than launch into a long discourse about why I think it's relevant in this instance, I ask you to review this website and think about some of the ethical issues raised beneath the humorous and apparently trivial content. Hypocrisy in political figures and leading social personalities is a deeply troubling aspect of modern political (and especially American) life, a cancer, and I would like to see it counteracted if possible. Possibly I am old fashioned in this regard. Skoppensboer 06:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * this website listed above previously resolved to a libel website called the *fudge*packer*report* and went dead at some point afterward. I reverted Skoppensboer's update to its new incarnation on Geocities. This is a libel site and therefore is not appropriate for inclusion in either an article or a talk page about the subject. Skoppenboer maintains that the previous site worked until yesterday. I tested it a while ago when I went to remove it and it failed to resolve to the old site. If it was true that this site recently resolved to the libel site then it should have been deleted before now. That was an oops on my part that I thought it was nonfunctional. Caper13 21:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Amusingly, I called the owner of that Russian redirection site (VOIP is so cheap) and he told me he was paid to remove that link (he refused to say how much, but he wanted me to bid anyway). I'm obviously up against money here, and I'm not going to match it. You win, Matt. Skoppensboer 03:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you freaking serious! You actually ask me to check out a link you provided which you describe as something relevant. For everyone else's benefit, I'll tell them the title of this website, so they dont have to bother expending the energy it took me to click the mouse. The site you directed me to is called "The Fudge Packer Report". I'm done dude. If you are that full of irrational hatred for Drudge, I really don't see what further we could have to discuss unless you have some KKK sites to direct me to also. I hear there is a site called godhatesfags.com. Why don't you see what they have to say about Drudge. I know they are against the IRaq war, so they probably hate drudge as well. Sheesh. You really fooled me. I took you seriously for a minute. Caper13 06:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So you were unable to look past the levity and consider the serious issues I asked you to ponder, "dude". As expected. For the benefit of others, that site links to video and articles that highlight the fact that Drudge's stock-in-trade consists of impugning the private lives of others, including their putative homosexuality. Since this is the activity in which he chooses to engage, his own sexuality is of great interest to the public, the opinions of reverso-bots notwithstanding. Skoppensboer 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No. I didn't see the levity in a hate site called "The Fudge Packer Report". If this is the type of evidence you are basing your opinions on, then I see where you are coming from. Drudges sexuality may be of great interest to you, but it is not appropriate to include in this page. Anyone who reinserts entries like were made in the past will be reverted and it will be treated as vandalism, whether it is a named account or sock puppet IP's doing the reinsertions. So fair warning to anyone.


 * Oh and for future reference. If you ever change my comments on a talk page again, I will bring a case against you. Caper13 06:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I changed your comments? Not that I know of. I did attempt to edit the tile of this section to make it more meaningful, but other than that, if I edited your comments it was in error. Skoppensboer 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Skoppensboer — it is not the job of an encyclopedia to point out what you believe to be hypocrisy. Rkevins82 06:57, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No, of course not. Readers should be able to draw that conclusion themselves, if they are given ALL the details about a person's life, including what others have written and published about them, without being sued. Skoppensboer 16:11, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * No. See WP:BLP. Caper13 16:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Skoppensboer's post above,
 * "Caper13, you ask "Why are some people so worked up about Drudge's sexual orientation?" I'm not worked up about it per se, but rather than launch into a long discourse about why I think it's relevant in this instance, I ask you to review this website and think about some of the ethical issues raised beneath the humorous and apparently trivial content. Hypocrisy in political figures and leading social personalities is a deeply troubling aspect of modern political (and especially American) life, a cancer, and I would like to see it counteracted if possible. Possibly I am old fashioned in this regard. Skoppensboer 06:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)"
 * seems to suggest that the conclusion is predetermined and a goal of the article. Rkevins82 19:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Per Skoppensboer's comment " [Hypocrisy is] a cancer, and I would like to see it counteracted if possible" is a little too perscriptive. It is not the WP policy to ferret out supposed hypocrisy in public figures.  WP is not for advocating social change. --Rtrev 03:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Does anyone care to source David Brock's Blinded by the Right? That is the only source I can think of that specifically addresses Drudge's alleged homosexuality. Can it not simply be posted as a significant thing to note, especially considering Drudge's politics? There is no libel suit against David Brock as far as I know. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.43.113.2 (talk) 15:21, 18 December 2006 (UTC).

Can anyone tell me what this sentence is supposed to mean
Drudge's opinion on blogs has also been very hostile[citation needed], causing numerous "Drudge-like" websites to appear, with the use of blogs as a part of their function, with a columnar format.

Maybe I am just dumb, but I can't understand what the point of this sentence is. I could understand Drudge having a hostile opinion of blogs (though he doesnt appear to) but I dont know why this hostility would encourage the creation of Drudge like websites. Caper13 17:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the citation-needed tag to it previously, but you're right. It's complete gibberish. Crockspot 02:12, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Drudge on his radio show promotes the idea of a 'citizen journalist'. He thinks the term 'blog' "it's just a blog" is demeaning. That internet journalism should accrue First Amendment rights, if Judith Miller can go to jail for protecting her source, any citizen journalist can. That big corporate press has no more special rights than citizen journalists. That the market place of ideas will select the winners and losers of the work product of the internet CJ's. It is amusing to recall the long time feud between Savage and Drudge, if Drudge posts arbitron ratings, it's always a lie or out of context numbers, according to Savage. Is Drudge a source for talk radio ?, the truth is it is likely one of many sources. Hrothgar 23:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It's still unclear what the statement is supposed to mean. It found its way back into the article, and is still unsourced, so I removed it again. Drudge being the "cause" of something (whatever the statement is claiming that he is the cause of) would need to be sourced, or it is OR. The article flows better without that statement anyway. In reply to Hrothgar, I listen to a lot of talk radio, and just about any show, you can read the Drudge report and tell that they are running down the articles on his page, whether they acknowledge it or not. But that is simply observation, and to put it into the article without citing a reliable source that says he is a source for talk radio, would be original research. Crockspot 16:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Also "He failed his Bar Mitzvah", is that correct? Is there an exam at the Bar Mitzvah ceremony? 202.123.249.240 19:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Those are his own words. I believe a Bar Mitzvah involves singing certain Hebrew songs, memorizing passages from the Torah, etc. He was unable to manage that. If you cannot do that, you fail the process. Skopp   ( Talk )  21:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Keith Olbermann's definition here
It is completely unacceptable to define Olbermann here as a "liberal" when he himself has defended himself from accusations of liberal bias and when his own page on WP does not contain this often-pejorative descriptor. There are agenda-driven editors here attempting to defuse all criticisms of Drudge by painting every one of his detractors as biased and partisan. It has to stop. Skoppensboer 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that "news commentator" is more appropriate here. As to your constant charges of "agenda-driven" editorship of this page, if seems mighty hypocritical, don't you you think?  It seems that the only reason you have ever edited Matt's page is to flesh out each negative speculative rumor or third party comment that paints Drudge in a negative light.  Giles22 15:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I won't engage with Giles22, an editor with a history of quarrels over politically-oriented pages, in a personal debate. Olbermann should not be described as a "political activist". That is not his job or how he sees himself. Please use the description of Keith Olbermann from his WK page, namely "an American news anchor, commentator and radio sportscaster. " Otherwise, Mr Drudge should be described as a conservative activist, which he clearly is. Skoppensboer 21:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * News-anchor and commentator is appropriate. I don't see how "sportscaster" is at all pertinent to this comment.  Giles22 21:47, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Change made. Skoppensboer 00:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Skoppensboer. Your personal attacks on this talk page are not constructive. Please cease them. Caper13 22:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I don't necessarily disagree with your argument but it would be nice if you refrained from personal attacks and try to maintain WP:AGF.  It might be good for both you and Giles to take a couple deep breaths realize you are coming at the article from different angles and work on the article in a WP:NPOV manner.  Its just not worth the headache most of the time. --Rtrev 01:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

New Image of Matt Drudge
I have searched for a free image of Matt Drudge and have been unable to locate one. As such I have uploaded a new Fair Use image with an appropriate fair use rationale. I am continuing to look for a free image of Drudge and would appreciate any help anyone provide in locating one. This image is intended for temporary use until a free one becomes available. Please keep looking. Caper13 23:31, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Early Childhood facts from interview with Drudge's friend Howie Kurtz

 * Now goodness me, whatever can you have against facts told to Howard Kurtz by Drudge that were printed in the Washington Post and have been around, uncontested, for 7+ years? Are you guys for real? The facts are very germane to his character and persona, and that's why Kurtz mentions them. And the website linked to is a news archiving website, been around for years and years. That posting has been there for 7 years. The same article exists on the Washington Post site but you have to pay to access it. Or is it the Isikoff quote that's got you upset? The context is a paragraph in which well known people are saying bad things about Drudge, in a section called "Criticism". Hello, that's on topic, sourced, and proper. Please stop editing to your liking, and try to keep to the facts. Your reversomania is impoverishing this article and keeping it at stub-like length. Skopp   ( Talk )  05:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think I see a problem with the Isikoff quote. The details about his mother's mental illness seems a bit much though. Particularly if it is being included to cast flavor to his "character and persona". That would be assumed to be trying to make him look bad. WP:BLP would apply. Just because something can be sourced does not mean that is should be sourced in Wikipedia. Not to mention that it's just plain cold and heartless. - Crockspot 18:46, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Including his mother's mental illness and parents divorce seem gratuitous and intended only to try to define him in some way, and his parents problems have not been shown to define who is is today. That sort of thing is not worthy of an encyclopedia. This is an encyclopedia. not the True Hollywood Story on E!. The first part of the quote isnt encyclopedic either, but it doesnt automatically qualify as a cheap shot. Caper13 20:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Gentlemen, for I presume that is what we are, you seem to miss the point that an encyclopaedia is here to documents facts about things. The facts I mention are facts of his life. Are we only supposed to include facts that cast a favourable light on the topic at hand? This is a whole new approach to WP! I suggest you visit the many, many pages on numerous individuals that document all the facts of the subject and his/her immediate family, both good and ill, and start editing, quick! Cleanse out the cold and heartless data please! It's also absurd that any of you regard the fact that he has mental illness in his parents as somehow demeaning. Those attitudes went out with the burning of witches. No, I don't think it makes him look bad, but it's an interesting data point from a psychological POV, considering his odd lifestyle (cloistered in a room alone all day, watching numerous computer screens). The divorce data was included for interest: an only son of divorced parents. To me, it gives a good feel for his background and who he is. This is not supposed to be a hagiography, folks. Skopp   ( Talk )  23:05, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Skopp. I am sure your motives for wanting to include Drudge's mother's mental illness in the article are completely above reproach as was your wanting to include rumours about his sexuality, but it is a well established policy in Wikipedia that a item does not get included in an article simply because it may be documented somewhere. Appropriateness and notability also have a role, and that has nothing to do with whether the item makes the subject look good or bad or whether you have the opinion that the subject has an odd lifestyle, or not. Caper13 23:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not cleansing the article of cold and heartless data. It is including notable information, that is presented without point of view. You (Skoppensboer) seem all-too-willing to interpret the meaning of his parents' divorce or mental illness that I have little doubt why you argue for it. If medical conditions of parents are notable, what is not? Rkevins82 04:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a good Early Life description from WP: Albert Einstein. It shows a level of detail that seems unacceptable here. Why is detail being expunged unnecessarily? None of this stuff is legally actionable under any circumstances, so you are not right to revert on the basis of your (slanted?) idea of what "notable" means. If you are convinced I'm trying to make the subject look bad, why not balance that by inserting positive, but true, data? Build the article, don't stunt it! You do not make the subject seem better than he is by suppressing data available elsewhere, which is thus far your modus operandi. (And Caper13, it was waaaay more than "rumours"). Skopp   ( Talk )  06:06, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV does not mean an equal number of complimentary and negative items. Caper13 06:08, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * But isn't that more or less what makes up every life? In every biography you'll find good and bad; I say that having read many. Skopp   ( Talk )  16:51, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of Category "American Conservatives"
Please stop removing this category on the basis that this is a deleted category. It is not. See the discussion relating to deletion of "American Conservatives". The result of the debate was no consensus. Skopp  ( Talk )  17:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It is a deleted category, it is depopulated completely. Wjhonson 18:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * yes, some busy little bodies have run around deleting it from wherever it appears, but no consensus was obtained on deleting the category and it still exists. Skopp   ( Talk )  18:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * FYI, those "busybodies" are bots carrying out the policy decision that was reached by consensus here. A category cannot be deleted if it is populated, so the bots have to remove everything from the cat before it can be deleted. Repeatedly readding articles to a to-be-deleted category not only confuses the bots, it pisses off their handlers. - Crockspot 20:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


 * How fascinating. Isn't it strange therefore that I had no trouble finding the page discussing this very issue in which the lack of consensus on this issue was noted? But anyway, I appreciate you taking the time out of your day to make this informative comment. Skopp   ( Talk )  21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Funny, it looks like a unanimous consensus to delete to me. But your smartassiness is appreciated. - Crockspot 22:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I saw a bunch of "delete per CFD" and just assumed it was accurate because the person doing it had thousands of edits, so I assumed they knew what they were doing.  I guess that makes an ass out of me :) Wjhonson 06:37, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

First, let me say I speak as a long-time user of Wikipedia, but as someone who just now signed up for an account. Three things, in observation of this discussion: (1) I don't particularly care for Drudge, though I go to his site daily. (2) I've rarely seen a less objective editor than Skoppensboer. Who cares if he's gay? Who cares if his mother was mentally ill? Those are simple facts that have no bearing on this article. (3) As for Olbermann, if Drudge is described as "conservative", KO should be described as liberal. Liberal isn't pejorative, it's descriptive. It's a word I use to describe myself, in fact.

So, those are my thoughts in passing, on reading this discussion. K. Scott Bailey 08:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Nobody gives a tinker's cuss for your thoughts on the matter, whether you "care for" Drudge or not, how long you've signed up at WP, or whether you think the terms liberal or conservative or pejoratives or not. All of that adds nada to this page. As for the gay issue, it is highly relevant given the man's use of (supposed) homosexuality as a weapon against public figures (Kerry) and conversely, his defence of a fellow conservative (Foley) who engaged in sex talk with under-age boys by blaming the boys. In light of these actions, his own obvious homosexuality is very germane, especially when it is public knowledge to anyone with a scintilla of intelligence, or anyone who reads widely. However, WP treads very gingerly with facts in the biographies of living people, for legal reasons. Skopp   ( Talk )  15:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Without reliable sources backing up the claims that: He uses homosexuality as a weapon against public figures; and in defence of "fellow conservatives" (that's a double unsourced statement), these comments are not only a personal attack against an editor, but a violation of WP:BLP. - Crockspot 20:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, another informative Crackpotism. My day is complete. Skopp   ( Talk )  21:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, another unwarranted and unproductive personal attack. My day is complete as well. Question, did you go to the FAAFA School of Social Graces? - Crockspot 22:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Please be civil with you comments on talk pages. Wikipedia editors should welcome comments from all interested persons. Your belief that information about Drudge's sexuality should be included has been rejected, due to WP:BLP (as you noted). Thanks for keeping the conversation civil. Rkevins 04:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I reiterate my previous comment for Crockspot. Rkevins 16:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)