Talk:The Daily Caller/Archive 1

Discussion of recent changes.
The changes which supplemented the Daliy Callers advertisements keeps getting reverted. A look at the users page will show a pattern of "paid wiki" content changes, with multiple ad links removed and many changes reverted. Second vandal shows a pattern of "paid wiki" for the GOP. Further, first vandal also attempts to delete this discussion. I've reported the abuse. 70.90.34.77 (talk) 20:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * You will be blocked soon. But that's not much in the grand scheme of things.


 * I strongly suggest that you sit back, away from the monitor, and take a look at the guidelines of how Wikipedia works. How content must be sourced. Look at WP:V and WP:NPOV. Look at WP:NOT.


 * Understand that it is simply not acceptable for you to add your own strong personal opinions and pass them off as fact.


 * Understand that it is simply not acceptable for you to use multiple accounts to get around things. Read WP:SOCK.


 * And then start a user account (it's easy!) and start contributing. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:01, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I suppose you think that being caught vandalizing pages will make things bad and then you'll be in a hole that you can't get out of. But that's not true! Plenty of people such as yourself have gone through Wikipedia reform efforts. There are a long list of great contributions made by 'reformed vandals' on this site. You can be one! Just follow my suggestions above. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * See [] Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Fortunately, administrators are here and thus I can let them sort you out and abandon this page. This really has been a painful waste of time. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 21:42, 12 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Why did you delete this discussion 3 times before responding to it? You're the vandal here bro. page blanking is not acceptable 173.122.85.176 (talk) 01:48, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your use of sock-puppet accounts to evade a user block (a clear violation of Wikipedia anti-vandalism policy) has been reported to administrators. Sugar-Baby-Love (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2011 (UTC)
 * SugarBabyLove has deleted his account. Can we agree on the correct changes that he kept blanking now? 70.90.34.77 (talk) 16:28, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion about The Daily Caller as a reliable source at WP:RSN
There is currently a discussion of The Daily Caller as a reliable source at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#The_Daily_Caller Drrll (talk) 16:50, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The discussion has now been archived here. Garrett Albright (talk) 16:38, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

"Critics" paragraph
I have twice removed the following paragraph from the article:

''Critics point out that the writing style however of staff is very snarky. Often one will find quotes in just one article such as "NPR's snobby listeners" and "Jewish-conspiracy-propagating NPR" when interviewing NPR journalists and even featured a running collumn called "We Watch so You don't Have to" which lambasted liberal pundit, Keith Olberman daily.''

I did so because of its non-neutral & unencyclopedic tone ("Often one will find quotes in just one article....."), not to mention weasel wording (the "critics" are not clearly identified). Also, the sole citation is a primary source that does not confirm the assertion that "crtics point the writing style....is very snarky", and the last sentence is unsourced.

My removals were twice reverted by an IP who claimed that the matter had already been discussed on the talk page, implying there was a consensus for the paragraph to remain. Well, I could find no discussion on that particular paragraph, so if I am missing something, I would appreciated being filled in. I would have no objection to the content remaining if it were better sourced and made more neutral and encyclopedic in tone & style. However, I cannot see a valid case being made for it as currently written & sourced. Feedback is appreciated--JayJasper (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Deletions
Not sure why JayJaser and Fat&Happy keep deleted mods to this article but wish they would contribute instead of just delete. 68.42.116.104 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Read WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, especially the first. Fat&amp;Happy (talk) 17:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * See WP:3RR as well. Continued edit warring will get you blocked. Before reverting to your desired changes again, please discuss them on this page to get consensus before proceeding.--JayJasper (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

"Ideology" section? Pathetic and ridiculous.
A quick perusal of Wikipedia articles for other media outlets has no such section, why is such a section here on the article for The Daily Caller? For examples, there is no such "ideology" section for The Huffington Post, Politico, of Buzzfeed. More pervasive leftist dishonesty at Wikipedia, which still cynically claims to operate based on the values of NPOV. The entire "ideology" section should be deleted. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I disagree. I came to this article seeking background on TDC and this "Ideology" section is very helpful.  However, I think a NPOV requires that the TDC is clearly described as a news outlet for conservative and libertarian stories. That's apparent from the content of TDC, and FAILING to say so dishonest and not neutral.Amead (talk) 23:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, Bobinisrael, I'm not sure when The Huffington Post's "Political views" section was started, but their page does discuss the ideological slant of the publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jodayagi (talk • contribs) 17:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

The Daily Caller is an unreliable source.
Several discussions on the matter have concluded that the daily caller is unreliable. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_145#The_Daily_Caller_is_not_a_reliable_source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_71#The_Daily_Caller

Neosiber (talk) 02:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * This talk entry seems to violate Wikipedia neutrality standards. The whole point of Wikipedia is to be neutral, and now you're using The Daily Caller's own talk page to attack them. Moreover, the first discussion link above ends with MastCell reporting that TDC was accused of paying the prostitutes to make up the allegations. What he does not reference, is that virtually no one in the mainstream media believes those allegations. WaPo, Slate and The Atlantic, three sites that hardly ever agree with TDC all said they didn't believe TDC would pay women to make up those allegations.


 * As I understand it, the Menendez matter devolved into a sort of TDC vs. WaPo argument. Even Politico noted that the WaPo was doing sloppy reporting in an effort to debunk TDC story. Further, the Senator was already being investigated by the FBI in regard to the prostitution allegations for months before TDC ran it's first story. Documents show that the FBI was investigating at least as far back as August 2012 and in September 2012, an email showed that the FBI had been able to confirm much of the information about the prostitution allegations. TDC ran its first story in November 2012. The senator is also under investigation by the Senate Ethics committee and a federal grand jury for corruption charges that involve the same donor as the prostitution allegations. Other news outlets have reported the information from these documents as well. Although it's true that the Dominican police reported three women were paid to make up the allegations, no one has provided photos of the women, or any proof that two of them are the same women that TDC spoke to. Further, though the FBI so far has not turned up proof of the allegations, they have also not exonerated the senator and the case is still open. I agree that the reporting of this story may have been shoddy and new developments opened more questions than closed them, but it can't be proven that the women are telling the truth now vs. then. It's just as likely that they were paid after the fact to recant their original stories. All said, this was a murky story at best that TDC should not have run with, but it far from makes it an unreliable source. Also important to remember that as a news source, they were reporting allegations, not promoting them, as the discussions have stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.210.39 (talk) 20:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not an attack, the Daily Caller was listed as unreliable before the current allegations came out. Wikipedia itself says that it is unreliable. I removed information from the Daily Caller entry that was sourced to it.
 * That is all, and the talk page doesn't have to be neutral, it's the Wikipedia entries that have to be neutral and and they have to use reliable sources.
 * The rest of your post is irrelevant to the matter. Neosiber (talk) 22:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Exactly where can this list be found, and where is the entry documenting when The Daily Caller was added to it? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 23:32, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither one of the links provided above comes to any conclusion, so I'm not sure how you can say "Wikipedia itself says that it is unreliable." That's false. The first link above ends with the allegation of payment by TDC to the women listed as fact, with no mention of the fact that virtually no one in the mainstream media has said they believe this is actually true. Anything written on it has doubted the veracity of those claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.200.6 (talk) 15:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Again, what is important is what has been decided by Wikipedia, it doesn't consider the Daily Caller reliable so any information using it as a source should be removed. It's pretty simple. If you have issue with it, bring it up to the board and let them decide. Neosiber (talk) 20:10, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Again, such a blanket statement without any links to substantiate it may be properly disregarded as rhetoric, not policy. As asked above, where is the list of non-reliable sources that has TDC include on it? Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 20:23, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with Fat&Happy. You can't just keep saying Wikipedia doesn't consider The Daily Caller reliable as if wishing made it so. Neither of the links you provided when you started this section show that to be true. Where is something concrete showing Wikipedia has decided? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.54.125 (talk) 22:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually the links do conclude that.
 * "Wrong, wrong, wrong. National Enquirer articles only are shown to be not total lies (when they, rarely, do have a grain of truth in them) LONG, LONG after the fact, because other more reputable organizations have followed up the leads and allegations. Since we do not do WP:OR we can only evaluate the reliability of a source based on its reputation and history. The Daily Caller has a reputation for yellow journalism, and happens to also be a partisan source, so it is non-RS. If at some point TDC printed something that somehow happened to not be complete and utter horsepuckey, we would still not be able to use it until a RS repeated it, because until an RS vets it, it is still garbage. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ] # _ 03:40, 21 March 2013 (UTC)"


 * "As a sad but telling footnote, this "story" has collapsed into allegations that the Daily Caller actually paid the prostitutes in question to lie and frame Menendez (Washington Post, Newark Star-Ledger, The Hill, Politico, etc). While these new allegations are no more substantiated than the original accusations (which the Daily Caller heavily promoted), we're left with a situation where in the best case, this website promoted transparently false and defamatory smears against a political opponent; in a worst-case scenario, the website actually paid to have a U.S. Senator framed. Even assuming the best-case scenario, this episode is worth keeping in mind next time someone pushes to use this source for contentious material about living people. MastCell Talk 17:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)"


 * So yes, they did conclude that it is unreliable, stop vandalizing the page. Neosiber (talk) 22:43, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are just as many posts saying the opposite. So if the thread gets closed after a comment, does that mean the last comment is the final word, as in a decision has been made? Nothing has been declared to be resolved as far as I see from that page. Again, I'll point out that in the sad and telling footnote above, the post does not mention that many members of both the mainstream and liberal media stated that they did not believe the claims of The Daily Caller paying for the story. This includes Washington Post, Salon, Politico, Huffington Post and The Atlantic. i will add that into the page using those sources instead of The Daily Caller, to say the exact same thing. I'm sure you can't call that vandalism.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.54.125 (talk) 23:08, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Now was that so difficult, use reliable sources and no one cares. Neosiber (talk) 02:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The sarcasm isn't necessary, and you still haven't shown how "Wikipedia says" The Daily Caller isn't a reliable source. Cherry-picking quotes where people state their opinion doesn't cut it when I could cherry-pick others that say the opposite. I don't accept your premise at all. Also not for nothing, but even if it isn't a reliable source for every other entry - a position which I dispute - this entry is about The Daily Caller. To say you can't use its own website, when it is the subject of the entire wikipedia page, is absolutely absurd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.54.125 (talk) 03:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

wow, i got quoted directly!

ip editor, as i said over at RSN, I think you are misusing those sources, which give every appearance of being opinion, certainly in the WaPo case, and probably in the others as well. The tone of the sentence citing them was decidedly un-encyclopedic as well. And finally, your edit summary definitely ran the risk of not assuming good faith.

Perhaps you could propose your intended modifications here and we can actually try and come to a consensus about it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  17:48, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I take your point. That makes sense. But it's not at all fair to say TDC was accused, and they denied it, without somehow referencing the fact that there has been no proof and no one believes the accusations to be true. Basically, the whole Menendez section (which others have argued doesn't even belong on this page) is currently written as: TDC reported allegations, and Menendez denied them, so therefore it's a scandal that reflects badly on TDC. No one anywhere has accurately told the full story, which includes the fact that the FBI investigation existed before TDC reported on the allegations and is still ongoing. And I do assume in good faith that that is because the story is confusing and a lot of media outlets are predisposed not to report all the facts of this story anyway. Any assumption of not good faith otherwise was because I was accused of vandalism. 70.192.215.196 (talk) 18:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Also as I just noted on the Noticeboard that started this:
 * Erik Wemple and David Weigel (the WaPo and Slate bloggers, respectively) are used in over 500 Wikipedia entries. Some of them aren't using them as a direct source, but the majority are. These include pages for Benghazi, Arnaud de Borchgrave, The Cycle (TV program), Gawker, Toure and Ari Shapiro (Wemple); and Republican Presidential Primaries 2012, Jennifer Rubin, Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories, James David Manning, Chris Coons and Ron Paul newsletters (Weigel). As all of these cite the blogs that Wemple and Weigel write, then I would assume they are treated as the same non-RS as the blog entries of theirs that I cited? 70.192.207.199 (talk) 19:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * That they're used as sources elsewhere on WP is not an argument. If you can give some context, that would be really helpful. Since I voluntarily adhere to 1RR rather than 3RR in order to avoid edit wars, I would really appreciate it if you could revert your re-inclusion of that material until we sort it out. thanks in advance. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  19:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)
 * and i'm assuming you're the same as the previous ip editors, is that right? -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  19:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Working on it, which will take a moment to compile. In the meantime, since I already had this argument with Neosiber, which is what started the whole "Is the Daily Caller a reliable source," conversation in the first place, and I made changes to accomodate him which he has already approved, I'm going to leave that up until we get it sorted. You're welcome to revert it again, but it seems to me that it has already cleared the hurdle. 70.192.207.199 (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay, now it seems very much like you're dissembling. Please direct your attention to WP:BURDEN which states:
 * "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material"
 * There is another term we use here sometimes, "asking the other parent". It seems very much like that's what you're doing.
 * Again, please self-revert this entire addition until we can get this sorted. If my experience is any indication, this will be a much friendlier and more hospitable environment, not to mention it will take less time to reach consensus, if you self-revert your re-addition now, and we sort it out here. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  19:52, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Respectfully, no. Also I resent the accusation of dissembling, which is not at all what I'm doing. I'm trying to make a more balanced entry than the one that currently exists. I also believe I have shown proof of my claims, in that three journalists who very vocally disagree with TDC on a fairly regularly basis made it a point to not just stay silent on the issue, but to state for the record that the allegations did not ring true. I made a change, another editor disputed my source, I changed my source - and in fact added two additional sources, and he agreed those were reliable sources. You disagree, and that is certainly your prerogative. But at the moment, until anyone else weighs in, the consensus, thin as it is, seems to be on my side. You are welcome to take out the edit, as is any other Wikipedia user, but given the fact that the person disputing my original source said it was fine, and that those and other bloggers are used as sources in literally hundreds of other entries (when a blog by definition is in fact opinion), with all due respect I will not be removing the edit. 70.192.207.199 (talk) 20:59, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * If you define "more balanced" in a way that allows you to misrepresent sources, or deflect suggestions you yourself solicited because someone else said something else was ok, then i think your goal of "more balanced" is in conflict with the stated values of this community, which works on consensus, not balance. Simply because you changed what you would like to put in the article in response to someone else's suggestion does not mean you are off the hook for that material, nor does it necessarily mean consensus is on your "side" -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  23:00, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Fine but it's not on your side either, that's all I was trying to say. You're putting the onus on me to revert the edit. You or one of the thousands of other editors on this site could do that with one click. No one has. That certainly doesn't support consensus for your position either. I haven't misrepresented anything at all. I've been very clear about why I think this is the right thing every step of the way, despite your assertions on the noticeboard that I won't engage with you. By "engage," you seem to mean "do as you have instructed." I've gone comment for comment with you all day, how is that not engaging? 70.192.197.60 (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Just because you can find a few people, even prominent people, willing to speculate about DC's role in the Menendez case does not mean that speculation should be in the article. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  01:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Too clarify something, I didn't approve of the resulting changes, I just decided to stop arguing and let other editors intervene in the matter so I wouldn't end up in an edit war. Neosiber (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for chiming in, Neosiber. So ip editor, any chance you might self-revert now? consensus and all. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  02:35, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The are are plenty of people who do consider Daily Caller a reliable source, and there are plenty of people that don't. The links at the top of this thread do not support the conclusion that it is not reliable, but rather, that it is a news publication people feel very strongly about one way or another.


 * Also, the edits don't look like vandalism to me. Making edits to potentially defame a publication with a preference towards negative coverage seems more like vandalism to me.


 * As for the Menendez section, the case is still unresolved, and the media fight (which most people focused on) was essentially a he-said/she-said between two publications that quoted anonymous and shady sources to back their claims, which happens quite a bit in media. If this section is to be in the article at all, then I think we need to rise above that instead of taking sides on the case and fighting over the neutrality of it. Otherwise, I once again propose that we strike it from the article and instead help this article to read like a proper Wikipedia article about a media company. Jodayagi (talk) 09:11, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There are situations where I might agree that TDC would be considered RS. Even e.g. a notoriously problematic publishing house like Trine Day will have publications that can be considered RS for particular claims. It does depend a great deal on context. But there is little reason to use it to reference straight fact-based reports if there are more reliable sources available that say the same thing. And if only TDC is reporting something, given its history I would be rather cautious about it, and as likely as not would err on the side of not including it. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  13:58, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"Notable stories"
I have several problems with this section.
 * There is a great deal of self-citation, which is suspicious in and of itself.
 * It uses "notable" in the title. since it is written in WP's voice, this is a suggestion that these stories themselves are prima facie notable. while there are a handful of other WP articles about newspapers that use this section heading (and the criticism may be extended to those other articles), as I noted in my edit summary, those are overwhelmingly used to detail awards that the newspaper has won for their reporting (Pulitzer prizes, for instance), rather than stories that they were first to.
 * It stretches the definition of notable itself to the breaking point. Looking at coverage of the Bachmann story, for instance, there are a few op-eds and articles that mention it in the week after DC printed the story, and not much else. Is this a "notable" story that would, say, merit more than a sentence inclusion right now in the article on Bachmann herself? If not, why are the standards for notability here set so low? If so, why is there not more coverage of it?

The standard of asserting a "notable" story here seems to be that someone else also wrote something about it. That seems to be rather low as a standard of notability for a media organization. You might almost say it damns with faint praise.

What I propose is that the wording of "notable stories" be changed, at minimum. I can't exactly figure out a wording that would be appropriate though, and am inviting suggestions.

I also think that the section should be trimmed, and several of the stories be removed entirely. if they are not notable enough to make it into the subject article with more than a passing mention, I would submit that they are not "notable stories" for a media organization. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  23:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

I will also note that in my edit summary when i said i couldnt find other articles on newspapers with "notable stories" sections, that was true. I had looked at articles about random newspapers that came to mind, and none of them did. a search revealed that there are a few, but i they are very much in the minority. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  23:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * The obamacare waiver section should be removed, that belongs on the obamacare page, same with the bit about Bachmanns migraines and the RNC night club incident. The 07 race speech should be moved to the Barack Obama page if it is at all verfiable.
 * The only ones that should stay are the last two, and it's not really notable stories, just issues that deal with the paper itself.
 * Neosiber (talk) 02:37, 30 May 2013 (UTC)
 * This section is indeed awkward. What counts as "Notable" then? Prize winning stories, and stories with notoriety? How do we establish notoriety? Jodayagi (talk) 08:40, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * How about we don't have a separate notable section for stories. Unless the stories are prize winning or have to do with the newspaper itself it shouldn't be included. That's why I think all but the last two should be removed.
 * Those are the only two that have to do with the paper itself. Neosiber (talk) 09:15, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I agree with this, with the only caveat being that i would limit that further: only if the stories have won notable prizes (or are about the paper itself) should they be referenced specifically. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  14:01, 30 May 2013 (UTC)


 * I changed it, but I don't know what to call it now, notable issues maybe? Neosiber (talk) 01:52, 31 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Since every citation from The Daily Caller has been removed, except those making it look bad, the banner at the top saying the article relies too heavily on sources too closely related to the subject can probably go. Since the new "Notable issues" heading has a negative connotation and the section is now not at all neutral, the second banner should stay. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 03:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The New York Times' article calls the "Notable issues" section "Coverage Issues." Might be something to think about, although the neutrality of that section is also disputed... Also, is there a reason why the Menendez section needs to be three paragraphs long, especially for a story that's supposedly a nothing-burger? If we named every story The Daily Caller wrote that upset someone powerful, this section would be obscenely long. The same goes for other journalism outlets as well.


 * Turns out The Daily Caller received a Murrow Award in 2012. That should be on this page somewhere. Jodayagi (talk) 04:43, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Wow, you're right, Jodayagi. Of course, since only the Daily Caller wrote that story, obviously we can't use that as a source. Good thing the Murrow awards have a website. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 04:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually since the Daily Caller wrote the story, it can be used in something like "The Daily Caller won a Murrow Award in writing for the Online News show 'The Horse Soldiers of 9-11' written by Alex Quade. And then use the Murrow award website for the overall sentence and a link to the actual video for the story.

Though the link on the Murrow awards page is dead, so another would have to be found. Neosiber (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * "Ethics incidents" is even more biased. I just did a quick search of some of the more controversial outlets and NONE of them have anything like that listed on their page. Also, a reporter interrupting the President wouldn't be an ethics issue, and neither would one case of an outlet getting a story wrong. Every media outlet has gotten stories wrong. That's totally unacceptable. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 05:15, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Again with the anti-TDC bias. Why is the section now called "Ethics Incidents?" Plagiarism and lying are ethics issues. Interrupting a president and reporting controversial allegations about a sitting senator involved in an ongoing FBI investigation are not. Jodayagi (talk) 05:19, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Some of the notable stories that were removed from this section looked to be notable because they were investigative pieces that led to real results. For example, the firing of RNC staffers and the resignation of the RNC chair, or Journolist being shut down. I would think that is what makes them notable, not simply that someone else wrote about them.69.143.54.125 (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Why not call this section "Criticism?" There's clearly a need by Wikipedia editors to trash this site. Labeling it "Criticism" is at least fair. Jodayagi (talk) 05:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I go by looking at what other articles about news outlets have, they have Ethics incidents, that's why I changed it to that. The allegations aren't controversial, they were made up, the daily caller should have done more checking before posting something like that, that is unethical. The interrupting reporter incident isn't an ethics issue, but I'm not sure where to put it. They don't have a notable articles page unless the issue is something major like the Pentagon papers.
 * The RNC staffers and RNC Chair issue belong on the RNC page, not here.


 * Neosiber (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's been said many times by myself and others on this page and elsewhere, but I'll say it again. The FBI investigation, while so far not turning up anything on the prostitutes, is still ongoing. It's inaccurate and not neutral to say the allegations were made up. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Neosiber, so do I. They have Controversy, Criticism and Coverage Issues sections. Prove to me that these are bonafide, proven ethics issues. You can't because they're not. I'm changing it back to criticism. Jodayagi (talk) 05:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * You ask me to prove something and then you ignore me and make up your own mind before waiting for my input. Again, the women say it's made up, the FBI says there is no evidence to support the matter, combined together is enough to say that at the very least the Daily Caller should have waited and checked there sources better, that makes it unethical. Posting wild allegations with little to no evidence is unethical, it is on the level of tabloid journalism. Neosiber (talk) 05:49, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Regardless of our difference of opinion on the allegations, you can not take 2 controversial incidents in the lifespan of a website that is 3.5 years old, and label them "journalistic practices" as if that's all they do. Why is controversies so objectionable to you? 69.143.54.125 (talk) 05:54, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * If anyone is vandalizing the page, it is you, Neosiber. You make it less neutral with every edit that you do. And until someone else comes on and contributes, there is no consensus for calling this an ethics issue over a controversy. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 05:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Removing an entire section without talking about it is vandalism. I did call part of it an ethics issue and part of it controversies. Neosiber (talk) 06:01, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Again, there is no consensus for calling it an ethics issue. It seems to me that people on this talk page have claimed you need the consensus to make the change, not to revert it back. Under that logic, that should go away until consensus is reached. I didn't say that the Menendez section should be deleted, just that it shouldn't be called an ethics issue. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 06:03, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Except it was deleted, you need consensus to make big changes like removing an entire section. Doing that is vandalism. I switched the menedez section to ethics incidents, because thats how other articles frame similar incidents. The Daily Caller was unethical, they posted an article without checking the facts, that is unethical, it's as simple as that. Neosiber :::(talk) 06:11, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * And without consensus for your opinion, I switched it back to controversies, leaving the Menendez section intact.69.143.54.125 (talk) 06:14, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Citing only negative instances and then calling it "journalistic practices" is libel. Not funny.

Again, as I said before, this is a case of WaPO v TDC. The hookers are all unnamed, and so they could be different hookers that spoke to WaPo. Look at the political situation in DR - Why would anyone tell the truth, or if they did, it's so corrupt, if they were threatened they might change their tune. Why is everyone believing hookers, and why do WE (as Wikipedia editors) even trust the words of anonymous hookers? This story is ridiculously unverifiable because every party involved is accusing every other party of lying. Given the contents of the rest of these discussions, it doesn't matter if notable journalists that have a regular bone to pick with TDC have expressed doubt in WaPo's allegations against TDC. Two editors are pushing for a negative slant, when two editors, and some IP editor(s) are pushing back. This is ridiculous. The section takes up three paragraphs, as if it's the only thing TDC has ever done. That doesn't make a lick of sense to me. I come to Wikipedia for good basic facts about things. I don't care about politics. I just want this to read neutrally, and sensibly. It really seems like you both have an agenda to make TDC look bad. Other news sites' articles talk about the organization as a business. Yes, there are sections devoted to coverage issues/controversy, but each story gets a sentence at minimum, a paragraph at most. Three paragraphs is excessive and should be edited to make it more concise if the section is to stay at all. There has been no consensus on calling it "ethics issues" or "notable issues" either. Calling TDC's coverage unethical, and devoting an entire section to that, is making a moral judgement. Encyclopedia's don't do that. Jodayagi (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Now you are going on a rant. It's actually you alone pushing an angle, removing information against consensus is against the rules and is vandalism. You should read what wikipedia is not WP:ISNOT Neosiber (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Actually, no, you just don't like the pushback when it doesn't suit your POV.


 * Sorry for removing the section w/o consensus. I still stand by my opinion that everything about that issue can be said neutrally in one tightly written paragraph, and I think that we should strive for that. It's late and I'm going to bed. I'll be back later. Jodayagi (talk) 06:42, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No, it's pretty obvious that your post was a rant because you aren't getting your way. Posting a big block of text like that makes it pretty obvious.
 * This isn't a paper encyclopedia, things don't have to be condensed to fit a book. Neosiber (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2013 (UTC)
 * My no was with regard to the second sentence of your response to my block of text. I didn't deny it was a rant. I actually don't care if the section stays or goes, but why is it important enough in your mind that it should stay? (Alright, now I'm going to bed) Jodayagi (talk) 06:59, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It's a notable issue, similar things are on other news outlets wiki pages. Look at them. Neosiber (talk) 07:18, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't much care what this section is called, but please do not remove the Mendez section as you did Jodayagi on 4 Junes 2013. This is all well sourced and well written. Your suggestion to condense it into a paragraph is really an attempt to white-wash. Chisme (talk) 16:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

Break
I'd like to suggest that everyone WP:CHILL. There is an awful lot of talk here that doesnt seem very AGFish.

Calling something "libel" also seems to me to violate the spirit of WP:NLT. There's no reason to throw around legal terms here. We're all actively trying to sort this out, and I don't think that TDC as an organization is subject to WP:BLP.

Also, it's a bit curious to me that the ip editor(s) seem to be advocating mostly the same things as. I would encourage the ip editor(s) to make an account. I would also point everyone to this quote from WP:MEAT: For the purposes of dispute resolution, the Arbitration Committee issued a decision in 2005 stating "whether a party is one user with sockpuppets or several users with similar editing habits they may be treated as one user with sockpuppets."

Now, it's absolutely possible that these are separate editors. I'm not suggesting they are socks or somehow related. I do think everyone should be aware of these policies though. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  16:13, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I can't speak for anyone else, but Jodayagi was advocating taking the Menendez section out, while I felt it belonged on the page, just not under an "Ethical issues" heading. We're obviously not the same person. But just for my clarity - is the argument here that because you and Neosiber agree that the daily caller is a questionable news site at best, you are correct, and because another person and I agree that the site shouldn't be defamed, we're sockpuppets? Also, under the logic above, what then would be the difference between sockpuppets and consensus? 69.143.54.125 (talk) 23:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Also, though I didn't mention the L-word (libel), and I don't really believe anything on the page rose to that level, thank you for pointing us to the No Legal Threats page. That is where I found this quote:
 * Wikipedia's policy on defamation is to immediately delete libelous material when it has been identified. A discussion of whether material is libelous absent indication of intent to sue is not a legal threat.


 * So it seems that nothing on this talk page would have violated that policy 69.143.54.125 (talk) 00:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I think he was pointing to this statement:
 * "It is important to refrain from making comments that others may reasonably understand as legal threats against them or against Wikipedia, even if the comments are not intended in that fashion. For example, if you repeatedly assert that another editor's comments are 'defamatory' or 'libelous', that editor might interpret this as a threat to sue for defamation, even if this is not intended. To avoid this frequent misunderstanding, use less charged wording (such as “That statement about me is not true and I hope it will be corrected for the following reasons...”) to avoid the perception that you are threatening legal action for defamation."
 * I think that's what he meant about violating WP:NLT. Neosiber (talk) 00:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It wasn't repeatedly, it was once. And the same page says a discussion with no indication is not a legal threat. Anyway, that's not my fight, I don't really care. I think libelous was too much anyway. Though I do not think that "defame" is too strong at all, which should NOT be taken as a legal threat. I don't really see how someone who has nothing to do with the subject of a page can even make a legal threat about libel or defamation anyway, but I suppose that's a different topic. I'm more interested in the difference between "consensus" (you, apparently) and "sockpuppets" (us, according to UseTheCommandLine's thinly veiled accusation. True, he/she stated that the comment was a suggestion, but merely posting it suggests the notion. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 00:51, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * He was just pointing out it does happen, and unregistered editors make many people suspicious. Wikipedia has had problems with sockpuppets. Neosiber (talk) 01:00, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's pretty much what I was getting at. With the recent stuff in the press about Qworty, this is a particularly salient issue for WP editors. And actually, this very page has had problems with sockpuppets. Several editors who appear on this talk page are currently banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry. It's a known target.
 * Further, IP editor, you seem to edit largely at this page, a practice which is frequently referred to as "SPA" or single purpose account. Many editors (including myself) feel this is also something of a red flag. And since I can't know this myself, not being an admin or checkuser, I thought it prudent to mention that, especially for purposes of dispute resolution and coming to consensus, if other editors have no effective way to tell people apart (as with individual accounts) then it's very difficult to see you as individuals. It also helps other users thread discussions; you appear to have changed IPs a good bit over the last week or so, and that makes it hard for other users to know for sure that this is coming from the same person.
 * I'm sorry that that comes off as an implication, but I really cannot think of a better way to say it (if you can feel free to suggest it on my talk page). It was intended to underscore the utility of having an account, though you are of course welcome to continue contributing as an IP.
 * Now, let's all take a deep breath and get back to figuring out how we can productively collaborate on this article. -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  02:10, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Your tendency toward hyperbole is a big contributor to what I (perhaps wrongly) perceive as your biased views that violate neutrality. You cite No Legal Threats after one mention of libel with no threat attached. You say that I've changed IP addresses "a good deal over the last week or so." I've just gone back through all of my contributions to this page. I've posted under exactly TWO addresses: 70.192.2... and 69.143.5... One was home and one was work. By your own admission, I'm under no obligation to register with an account. You can let it raise all of the red flags you want, but you are the one making baseless accusations about myself and other editors with no actual evidence to back them up. You can see why I question some of your edits. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 03:20, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * So the 70.x addresses at the RSN discussion werent you? Between this page and the RSN discussion I counted four, plus your 69.x address makes five. Are you saying those were not you? -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  03:48, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yep, they were. I just went back and looked at them - I have no idea why the 70.192.2... changed to 70.192.1... when I was sitting at the same desk the entire time, but I obviously was not trying in any way to conceal the fact that it was the same person making those comments who had started the thread. Also, ONE editor who appears on this talk page is currently banned, not "several editors" as you stated above. More hyperbole and statements that can not be backed up. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 04:01, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

fair enough. can we get back to discussing the article now? -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  04:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * What's the point? As long as it's the same four people discussing, nothing will ever be agreed upon anyway. I think we've all made it very clear where we stand, and nothing is going to change that.69.143.54.125 (talk) 04:09, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * That seems kind of standoffish. It could be read as a statement of intent to impede progress. Perhaps you could elaborate? -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  05:05, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Yet more hyperbole. Everything "could be read" as something. Most people don't go searching for things that aren't there. I'm surprised you need elaboration when the last two sections of this talk page are practically nothing but the same four people arguing the same 1-2 issues with a bunch of reverts, threats, accusations and mischaracterizations. (I acknowledge there has been one more editor chiming in occasionally: someone so invested in keeping the "Mendez" section intact that he has never once spelled the name correctly - clearly not a typo since he spells it the same way every time. A model user for impartiality and accuracy, to be sure.) Even days ago when I was answering all of your points and asking you questions, you were just saying the same things over and over, ignoring my questions, accusing me on a noticeboard of "not being willing to talk on the talk page" and asking for a 3rd party judgement. I'm new to Wikipedia, but it seems what you call "consensus" is reached when one person outlasts another. I thought Wikipedia would be a fun, collaborative experience. I've seen no evidence of anyone wanting to collaborate, so I again say what's the point of discussing? If anything, it's the opposite of intent to impede progress. This page is doing nothing but going around in circles, which obviously won't end until someone stops participating. So I'll break the cycle. You win, defame away. I'm not going to go search all of the policies so I can post one here, but I'm guessing this was NOT what Wikipedia was intended to be. 69.143.54.125 (talk)

12:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I am the user who can't spelled "Mendez" incorrectly and "chimes in occasionally" (as you, IP Number 69.143.54.125, wrote sarcastically). I am also the one who introduced the Mendez story into this Wikipedia article. And even if I weren't that person, I would be entitled to my opinions. Are you affiliated with the Daily Caller? Your comments here are awfully shrill. Chisme (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)


 * 1) Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion of course, but it doesn't belong in a Wikipedia article. I mentioned you in that way because I didn't want to be inaccurate by saying "only four people are discussing," but you haven't really expressed a strong opinion like we have other than to say "don't delete it." (And I wasn't the one calling for deletion anyway.) I was making the point that UseTheCommandLine has been given to hyperbole when attacking me and I didn't want to be guilty of the same thing. I apologize for bringing you in at all, but now that you mention it:


 * 2) Your introduction of the Menendez section violated neutrality standards, and was corrected by JayJasper long before I ever stumbled across this page.


 * 3) I was simply making the point (in a rather glib manner, I do admit) that I would think if you felt so strongly that the Menendez section was so important, you would know the man's name, which you clearly believe to be "Mendez," and even in responding to my post that you have never spelled it correctly, you still didn't. It doesn't lend a lot of credence to a sense of accuracy in editing a Wikipedia article when you don't even know the name of the person you are writing about. In every place on this talk page, and in your comments in the edit history of the article, you have consistently called him Mendez. The only exception to this was when you introduced it to the article, when you got it right. Clearly, it was copied and pasted from another page or I asusme you would have either had it right everywhere else, or spelled it "Mendez" there too.


 * 4) Not affiliated with The Daily Caller - but I have followed this entire Menendez saga very closely, and The Daily Caller has gotten a bad rap the whole time. I've addressed many of those issues in the paragraphs above and am loathe to repeat myself here, but the FBI investigation was in progress for months before the story was published and is still going on now (or was as of an article in the WashPost about 3 weeks ago). Until the FBI closes the case, no one knows what they will find. But no one has ever seen a photo of the women who allegedly claimed they were paid to lie, nor has anyone seen their statement. We just have the police in a corrupt country saying they made one. Now, no one can find these women, and many news orgs have sent people there to look. There is no proof they ever existed, let alone whether they are the same women in the video. The DR is corrupt, obviously someone has lied and/or is lying, but no one can say when that happened. TDC shouldn't have run the story and I've never advocated for removing it from the page. Hookers are sketchy witnesses. No one believed them in the first place. But everyone took those hookers' word as gospel when they reversed their story. There's no more proof of that than of the original allegations. There is tons more on this in the paragraphs above that I won't repeat here. I was just trying to show a balanced observation of where the situation stands. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 00:10, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * A few points in response:
 * "The Daily Caller has gotten a bad rap the whole time" makes it seem like you have an agenda. Please see WP:RGW
 * Your characterization of the police in DR as "corrupt" seems like bias to me. It's what they've said, and we have no reason to dispute that unless reliable sources call that into question.
 * Your characterization of these women as "hookers" also seems indicative of bias. My experience with sex workers suggests that that term is considered a slur, at least by some (nonrandom sampling and all that). You have used it several times, and I would appreciate it if you would stop doing so.
 * In my opinion, your combative attitude and insistence on your version of events is the single biggest impediment to progress on this article. The biggest indicator of that, to my mind, is that you have spoken mainly about your views, rather than ask other editors what they thought, or tried to negotiate a consensus. And when you have not been spouting off your own views, you have made assumptions and pronouncements about what your fellow editors' views are. This is inconsistent with honest collaboration.
 * I think it's about time to go for another dispute resolution mechanisms, though I am also a bit wary of doing so with someone who can't be bothered to make an account. It is far too easy to evade consensus that way. If you'd be willing to create an account, I'd be happy to kick this up to DRN, though perhaps at this point ANI would be more appropriate. and of course, you can always take it there yourself -- [ UseTheCommandLine  ~/ talk  ] # _  00:29, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * No need, honestly. I already said I was done. I don't need to discuss nor will I attempt to make any other edits on the page. Correctly or not, this seems to me to be a game of "outlast," and I just gave up, so you win. I only posted that last comment because I frankly find the whole "Mendez" thing really amusing and wanted to address it. And I'm only responding now to say you're mostly right above (which I've said to you before in the past weeks - "point taken," "you're right," etc. but have never had any sort of attempt from you for discussion about any of my points). But on the above, I was colloquial on the "bad rap" thing and shouldn't have been. The full story is not being covered by the mainstream media, who are the only sources you will allow me to cite. Secondly, I honestly thought that corruption in the DR is rampant was widely accepted, which was why I said it. If that's not the case, I stand corrected. Doesn't change the fact that they have released names of women that no one has been able to prove ever existed. Most importantly, I was colloquial on "hookers." I sincerely apologize for that. You're right. I don't think that indicates bias so much as insensitivity. The women were on tape claiming to have had sex for money. "Prostitutes" or "sex workers" would have been much more appropriate. Lastly, only because I'm going in the order above, I didn't get combative until I felt repeatedly bullied, and was incredibly frustrated as no one seems any more eager to engage with me than you say I have been to engage. I've never hidden or run away or stopped responding to things that have been specifically thrown out there. When was the last time you suggested a change or edit to the article rather than just attacked what I said in my comments? As I said, feel free to kick this up, but I won't be commenting on this page again. I'm not trying to always have the last word, (though I suppose it doesn't seem that way) but like I found the "Mendez" thing so amusing, I also felt it important to apologize for the "hooker" term. I think if you go back to the beginning of my comments on this page and on the noticeboard, you'll see my attitude has changed a lot as this has worn on. I'm too frustrated to continue. I'm spending way too much time on this and you've successfully beat me into submission. 69.143.54.125 (talk) 01:04, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

 Chisme (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2013 (UTC)


 * I took a break to cool down, only to return several days later to accusations of sockpuppetry by a set of accounts that could easily be accused of the same. Awesome. Wouldn't accounts coming to consensus also qualify as sockpuppets by that definition? Jodayagi (talk) 03:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Senator Bob Menendez allegations blanking
The Bob Menendez allegations topic in this article keeps getting blanked out. Before you attempt to blank it out again, note that previous blankings were reversed: Chisme (talk) 01:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
 * 1) 68.214.196.232 on 20 March 2013
 * 2) 2600:1003:b02f:2bb7:4a99:e8d7:1d2f:f0econ  23 March 2013‎
 * 3) Jodayagi on 4 June 2013
 * 4) Jodayagi again on 4 June 2013
 * 5) 62.205.120.108 on 10 June 2013

Reporter interrupting President Obama
This section doesn't belong. The event isn't particularly notable, in the grand scheme of things. It seems that most of this article consists of partisan bellyaching. Perhaps the Munro incident - along with all the other rock-throwing - could be rolled into a general "Controversy" section. I'm going to blank the section pending discussion. Will add to watchlist and come back later to consolidate the criticism after other editors have had a chance to weigh-in. Belchfire (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I would include it in subject's bio if anything. --Mollskman (talk) 01:32, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * - I strongly disagree. How is this not notable, but the sections on a Sarah Palin feud, RNC night club incident, Leaked JournoList e-mails, and Acquisition of KeithOlbermann.com are?  You can say they're not either, but you did not delete them.  When you have an unprecedented incident with the President of the United States that is still getting new coverage and analysis not just domestically but internationally now a week later, then that's very notable.  Please review Notability (events).  While we can debate how much of the article should be devoted to it, deleting the whole section is not at all a reasonable way to approach this.  It should remain in some way and then the extent to which it should remain can be debated as the duration of coverage is witnessed over time. - Maximusveritas (talk) 06:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It's only "unprecedented" if you're twenty-something years old and this is the first presidential term that you have paid some attention to. Many former presidents have been interrupted by journalists with no such outcry.  A history of such exchanges between presidents and journalists began long before you came around.Bobinisrael (talk) 16:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Deleting the section IS the only reasonable way to approach it when section doesn't belong in this article. Reporters yell questions at the President (and other politicians) all the time, but we don't have sections covering it in the articles for CBS, CNN or Fox News, do we?  No, because it's a routine event that doesn't have any bearing in an encyclopedic article (like this one) about the organizations.  If somebody wants to create an article about Neil Munro, fine the incident probably belongs there.  But not in the article for Daily Caller.
 * And take note of what I actually said in my earlier post - I stated that the article needs a "Criticism" or "Controversies" section, where these things can be given the correct treatment if it is even warranted, which at this point is far from clear. As it stands, the Munro incident is a minor blip in the news cycle and Wikipedia is not a news service.  (See WP:NOT) Reverting pending further discussion and/or creation of a section to properly handle this. Belchfire (talk) 06:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with Maximusveritas, it should be included in this page, it is relevant. In addition why is the Daily Caller listed as independent when it is obviously conservative? Neosiber (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * You obviously don't know what "independent" actually means in this context. More often than not, however, "independent" is used as a dishonest term to imply a non-existent objectivity. Bobinisrael (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sam Donaldson used to interrupt Ronald Reagan incessantly. Does that mean the article for ABC News needs a paragraph about it?  Of course not, that would be ridiculous.  Moreover, it isn't necessary to know Donaldson did this in order to understand the mission or the history of ABC News.  If such a thing deserves any mention on Wikipedia at all, it should be on Donaldson's page.  Similarly, the Munro incident belongs on Monro's page. Belchfire (talk) 03:23, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, it is obvious to many observers, but The Daily Caller identifies itself as Independent. So if anything, the line about political affiliation should just be taken out since it is open for debate.  I don't think any other page has it. - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Quite frankly, I never heard of the subject of the article until reading about this controversy. Bearian (talk) 22:04, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "Routine events" don't have thousands of articles written about them the national and international press, with new articles being written days after the event analyzing it. Even if you think Munro did nothing new or wrong, you should be able to separate out the question of its notability based on the depth and endurance of the news coverage.  If this event involved just Munro and the Daily Caller had a loose affiliation with him, maybe it would not belong here, but the Daily Caller has published many articles of its own defending him and casting his actions as one consistent with their organization's policies.  As a result, this is about them rather than just Munro, whose notability outside this event is questionable.  If having these incidents grouped in a controversy section makes it more palatable, we can do that.  - Maximusveritas (talk) 13:43, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that this section doesn't belong, but barring removing it, I certainly don't think this event qualifies as a "controversy." It was a notable event that generated a lot of press for it's 15 minutes, but it wasn't about the reporting of the outlet, as the Menendez section below it is. That certainly qualifies as controversy. This event was nothing more than a blip of a headline maker. Could we call it something else? 70.192.200.140 (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2013 (UTC)