Talk:The Gateway Pundit

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Gateway Pundit article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see this noticeboard.

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Politics C‑class

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Blogging C‑class (inactive)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

United States C‑class

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Conservatism C‑class

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Hanna Kozlowska (4 April 2018). "Facebook has introduced another half-baked effort to fight fake news". Quartz. Archived from the original on 4 April 2018. Retrieved 4 April 2018. It's also unclear which outlets get the "i" icon, and which do not. For example, InfoWars, a media company that is a well-known purveyor of conspiracy theories, does not appear to have the icon on its posts. That means the user would have to leave Facebook to determine the source's trustworthiness, which defeats the purpose of the feature. Other right-wing conspiracy sites, like Gateway Pundit, also do not have an "i" icon. Both of these sites have Wikipedia pages.

Gateway Pundit whining about its own Wikipedia page

GP published this diatribe[1] whining about this Wikipedia page. Apparently, we have "smeared" a "trusted" website such as GP. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)][reply]

No surprise. The writer is The Devil's Advocate and his explanation of his ban is false.Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2016-01-06/Arbitration report#The_Devil's_Advocate_banned I was involved in that decision. Doug Weller talk 19:50, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HAHAHA! soibangla (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you all sound very NPOV — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:8360:8FC0:6104:D486:A30:E5D2 (talk) 20:08, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smearing can go both ways. Rsb97080 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not reliable source

No fool in their right mind would use someone else's opinion column to describe an official company. Common practice is to go to the site itself and use their about description. Anything else can go under controversy and I will continue to remove everything you do that comes and conflict with ethical standards for an encyclopedia. Rfrf101 (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rfrf101: It is not common practice on Wikipedia to "go to the site itself and use their about description". We rely on reliable third party sources, because primary sources have a conflict of interest and are not likely to be objective about themselves. This applies to all articles on Wikipedia, not just The Gateway Pundit. Bennv3771 (talk) 09:43, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Bennv3771: I've blocked them indefinitely as WP:NOTHERE. Their edit summaries only demonstrate that. Why anyone would think that the subjects of an article should control the article in an encyclopedia is beyond me. But then people really believe that Covid19 is a hoax, so... Doug Weller talk 09:55, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does the Media Matters for America Wikipedia page cut and paste the description of that organization directly from the Media Matters website? SaxxonFeud (talk) 17:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to ask that on its talk page. WP:OTHERCONTENT We avoid using a subject's self-description. Otherwise, the Mafia would be a social club and all terrorists would be freedom fighters. O3000 (talk) 17:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]