Talk:The Gateway Pundit

Observation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Notability?

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

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

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

Requested move 5 March 2017

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

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

---

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

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

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

---

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

Article lead

Hi. The current version of the article reads:

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

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

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

The New York Times describes it as a "pro-Trump blog" and says its notability is tied directly to its "fervent pro-Trump coverage": "White House Grants Press Credentials to a Pro-Trump Blog... The Gateway Pundit, a provocative conservative blog, gained notice last year for its fervent pro-Trump coverage and its penchant for promoting false rumors about voter fraud and Hillary Clinton’s health that rocketed around right-wing websites."[1] I therefore believe that it is accurate to describe the website as a pro-Trump conservative blog website. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Final sentence of article introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There is absolutely zero coverage of this in reliable sources. Just google: "Reed Irvine Award for New Media" "gateway pundit". There are also concerns with WP:DUE, because this award is juxtaposed to the broad consensus among reliable sources that it's a conspiracy site[2]. So, it both misleads readers into thinking the website isn't a conspiracy site and in thinking that it has received a prestigious, notable award for journalism. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:16, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

Controversy

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