Talk:The Gateway Pundit

Observation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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) dubious TGP posts (with a primary reference) followed by the 4th (was 5th) reference of the NYT source. Suggestion: Delete the section, good riddance. Or rename it to Trivia. –89.15.236.223 (talk) 01:34, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

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

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

More sources: "Far-right"[4][5]. "Right-wing"[6][7][8][9]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:55, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

At [10] (they've added a correction). Found this here. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

False stories

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Washington Times

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

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

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

It has its supporters, of course, but I think this is the latest RSN discussion[11] and towards the bottom I link to two others. It's got a circulation just under 60,000 as compared to the Post's about 475,000, so it's hardly a major newspaper. It's on of those papers where normally if you can't find a better source the material doesn't belong in the article. I've decided not to use it in the past even where it might have been useful because I see it on par with the UK's Daily Mail. Doug Weller talk 16:54, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recent edit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fringe and conservative

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Origins story

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

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

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

"Influence on Donald Trump victory"

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

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

CJR says:

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

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

CJR also says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONUS

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

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

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

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

ACA and health problems

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