User talk:CharlesGlasserEsq

Welcome!

Hello, CharlesGlasserEsq, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction and Getting started
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to complete the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit the Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or , and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! <-- The preceding is a canned message but I am a real person and do want to welcome you here! --Doncram (talk) 19:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019

Thanks for creating an account. There's one more hurdle that applies in your case because there is a Wikipedia article about you. We want to protect you from impersonation. You may choose to edit under a new username (see information below), but keep in mind that you are welcome to continue to edit under this username. If you choose to do so, we ask the following:

1. Please be willing and able to prove your identity to Wikipedia.
2. Please send an email to info-enwikimedia.org. Be aware that the volunteer response team that handles email is indeed operated entirely by volunteers, and the reply may not be immediate (though if you share with me that you've done this I'll help move it along). In this case if you send an email from your law firm's email stating that this account is yours that should be sufficient.

Thanks for your willingness to engage in our processes. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

No worries at all. Someone on the talk page had told me to create an account using my real name. I'm more than happy to send validating document info anyway. (Assuming Passsport/Driver Licence is OK.) I do not work for Bloomberg or any law firm anymore. I work for myself and am an independent legal consultant to a wide variety of charities and publications, and as you see from the page about me, I am also a professor at two major universities where I teach Media Ethics and Law. I really look forward to moving forward. I have told the Daily Caller that they should not expect any kind of massive re-write, and that there's a strong likelihood that any revised article will still be unflattering -- let's be honest, the comments made by some editors indicate a patent adversity to Daily Caller, but we can at least get a good faith and honest shot at straightening out some errors. Best, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 18:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

I had seen that you were told to create this kind of account - in theory I'm supposed to automatically block these accounts (again for your own protection) but it felt wrong for someone to tell you to do it this way and then block you for following those directions. Driver's license/passport should be unnecessary and general we try to avoid for obvious privacy reasons. If your website doesn't have an associated email, an email from a university with your name should be sufficient (assuming I, or another volunteer, can verify on the university's website that it's the same Charles Glasser that our article is about). And yes I'm glad you have realistic expectations about what kind of changes will be made. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Oh, oops maybe, that was me advising about your choice of username. I am not up to speed on policies and general advice about that, oh well. I do stick by my assertion that some editors, me included, do appreciate when someone does choose to self-identify with their real-life name and info. I am sure there are pros and cons. One factor is that editors here generally dislike anyone's assertions of expertise/experience from elsewhere, and maybe by giving your name and there being an article about you and/or lots of other real-life info about you available elsewhere, you could possibly get some negative reaction relatedly as if you are making assertions of specialness/expertise/whatever. Whatever. :) --Doncram (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

LOL, that kind of underscores how sometimes confusing if not downright Byzantine this all can seem! I glad that you see that the confusing nature of it all is not indicative of any bad faith on my part. I'll do the verification thing from one of my University email accounts. Thanks again.CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 20:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Great. When you've done that let me know (with the ticket number if you have it). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Dear Barkeep49: I got the following message this morning: "The verification of the identity of this user account has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system. Full documentation is available only to OTRS volunteers. If you are an English Wikipedia user and wish to confirm the verification, please leave a note at the OTRS noticeboard. Ticket: 2019101710006481" I'm on business in DC through the weekend and wont be able to do much here. I'll get started on the "New Section" submission. I promise all it will be short, to the point, and academic, not argumentative. Thanks again to everyone for your patience and kindness. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlassserEsq

CharlesGlasserEsq, you are indeed all set to go. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

about posting a big document, or small sections

There was discussion and some start about advice elsewhere about your possibly posting a document. I said elsewhere to someone else: "Perhaps that document is in fact pretty substantial, and/or otherwise hard to discuss in one Wikipedia discussion (in fact I rather assume that it the case). Surely you must understand that it can work badly for an editor to make a too-long posting, which can easily be dismissed (e.g. by one or a few editors simply replying "tldr" (abbreviation for too-long-didnt-read, or by their seizing upon one small matter to completely dismiss it all). To continue analogy to U.S. legal system, they could probably use the advice of a lawyer here, too, in part about how to get their issues across. Like I wish I had, myself, and I really would have paid a lot of real-life money for, actually, when I myself was involved in a huge awful Wikipedia arbitration proceeding.) I suspect I would suggest that it be broken up into pieces for posting/discussion in separate discussion sections here, while perhaps having it be posted in one complete document form somewhere else for reference....". After that TFD pointed out you could post your document in a new discussion section, and that if it is too long it could be "hatted". For your information, I think what TFD meant by "hatting" refers to using {{collapse top}} before and {{collapse bottom}} after a passage to hide the passage underneath a displayed short message, which hides the passage but allows anyone to click in order to have the passage expanded and visible. That seems like a reasonable option to make your possibly-long text available in a section, but not overwhelm the Talk page. Or maybe TFD meant using a similar {{archive top}} and {{archive bottom}} to mark a discussion passage as being closed, not to be cut up by any editors arriving and cutting it up by inserting new comments in the middle anywhere. So that is an option. Assuming you do have a biggish document, at some degree of polishing maybe not perfectly presentable in all of its parts, you can post it or you can choose not to post it as a whole thing. It could be better to dole out pieces rather than asking for all participants to consider a whole totality. As human beings we are limited in our processing power. And Wikipedia talk page formatting is maybe horrible for handling discussions of big things. (Apologies for the clunky old editor we have here, which I am using, which is a mix of text and HTML-type tags. Maybe the default in your account is the same or maybe you are using the also-clunky WYSIWYG editor (available at least for mainspace articles, i am not sure about Talk pages).) Anyhow, you might do better starting out by raising one or two small, discrete factual issues for discussion in separate new discussion sections, and seeing how that goes, before sharing a big document, even if it is collapsed. Or maybe you should produce the whole thing, so as not to frustrate others with your seeming to hold back stuff, and then try yourself or allow others to try to divide continuing discussion into sensible sections. By the way IMO you do seem to have a good knack for not saying too much all at once in an ongoing discussion. That allows others to absorb and react and take stuff forward more naturally. As you might guess, i have a tendency to write too much maybe sometimes/often, and others sometimes really do not like that and it can work poorly for me sometimes. Hope this helps. :) --Doncram (talk) 19:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doncram: Trust me, I have no intention of writing "War and Peace" or a long-winded thing. Just a few points, support for those points with citations. Like I said, short and sweet. I'm a big believer in short, dry bites of text, without chest-thumping or adverbs or invective. I have no clue what "hatting" is, but how about this: let me get the thing together first, and *then* let's see if it's too long or dense to treat in one go. I really do want to make this a pleasant and easy experience. Too many people out there forget you are volunteers and they speak as if you owe them something. I truly appreciate your time. Cheers. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Hi again. I noticed you were given advice at Talk:The Daily Caller to start with other sections besides the lead, first. That is good advice, IMO. In general when a major rewrite of an article is done, editors save the lead until last, because it indeed is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the article. I guess wp:LEAD, in the "Manual of Style", is about that. For example, assertions can be made in the lead without footnotes, as long as they are supported further below by expanded development with footnotes. Actually, my own attempts to try to change the lead, there, first, could be said to be misguided, because the "truth" or whatever needs to be hashed out further below, first. (BTW, I still think the sentence I was trying to delete should be deleted, already, first, and several others do agree with me, but there are some who feel that the sentence is a fair reflection of stuff in the current "Controversies" section.)

Your edits suggest you expect to provide submissions about "Controversies", "Staff", and "Significant stories". Offhand that sounds reasonable, though I would hope the article ends up reorganized further, including evolving away from having a separate "Controversies" section, as some have advised already (pointing to article about The Sun (United Kingdom) as better, without such a section). But for now probably accepting a "Controversies" section, and working to make it more reasonable, seems to be what is feasible/practical. Another thing: I would think some development about the organization, staff, offices, systems, etc., and then basic history would be reasonable, before going into "Controversies".

By the way, the current outline of the article, when I look at it, is way over-balanced in its complaining. I guess this is new organization by Xoreaster's recent edits, which they explained as trying to make it more chronological, and maybe discussing controversies as part of a "History" section could be good. But it looks random, there are more complaining sections towards the end, outside of "History" organization.:

1	History
 1.1	Overview
 1.2	Obama administration
  1.2.1	Misleading video about NPR
  1.2.2	"Investigative series" about Media Matters
  1.2.3	Heckling of Obama
  1.2.4	False prostitution allegations
  1.2.5	Doctored photograph of Joe Biden
  1.2.6	Fox News controversy
 1.3	2016 presidential election
 1.4	Trump administration
  1.4.1	Encouragement of violence against protesters
  1.4.2	Stefan Halper
  1.4.3	Chinese email hacking
  1.4.4	Democratic representatives
2	Staff, contributors and organization
 2.1	Allegation of non-profit abuse
3	Political stance
4	Environment issues
 4.1	Climate change denial
 4.2	False EPA stories
5	Ties to white supremacists
6	Awards
7	References
8	External links

Anyhow, your first submission can only address one chunk of stuff or another, it can't solve everything, and it will surely be torn up / highly reviewed, so I would think trying to address small atomic elements, one at a time would be a good way to go. Eventually higher level stuff like the section organization and the lead will be addressed. "How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time...", someone said to me recently about a different big project. Good luck. cheers, --Doncram (talk) 19:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, figuring out how to to that took some thinking, and on the same lines as "holy schmoley, how do I get my hands around all this?" I'm breaking it down into four major sections, each starting with suggested new text, citations to same, and a short "rationale" bullet point for each suggested edit/deletion/addition. Then, once everything has been vetted by you all, you can decide if/how to structure the "table of contents" if it were. My only caveat is begging your indulgence on coding and format, but that should be a piece of cake once the content itself it settled. ThxCharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

October 2019

Hello, I noticed that you may have recently made edits while logged out. Wikipedia's policy on multiple accounts usually does not allow the use of both an account and an IP address by the same person in the same setting and doing so may result in your account being blocked from editing. Additionally, making edits while logged out reveals your IP address, which may allow others to determine your location and identity. If this was not your intention, please remember to log in when editing. Thank you. creffett (talk) 20:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

So sorry, I got an email alert and just clicked thru, had no idea the log-in was a separate step. Totally no intention of monkey business. I admit I'm pretty clueless. FWIW I only responded to some query on a talk page, did not make an edit to an article. Again, apologies.CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

CharlesGlasserEsq, yup, not a problem, just a friendly reminder (the warning I gave you uses a template, so it doesn't all necessarily apply to you). creffett (talk) 22:03, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

ANI

Hello, CharlesGlasserEsq. There is a discussion at WP:ANI#Personal Attacks and Legal Threats at the Daily Caller about me and the comments I wrote to you at Talk:The Daily Caller; your relationship with The Daily Caller has also been discussed. You are not required to participate, but you are more than welcome to join the conversation, if you wish to do so. – Levivich 15:12, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

WP:PAID compliance

First, although I was not involved, you have my sympathies for any confusion or concern the ethical violation and related discussions caused you. I personally feel it was unnecessary and inappropriate.

However I do have one concern. I'm not sure if you are currently in compliance with our Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure policy, which is also required by the terms of use of this site. Quoting a key part "If you receive, or expect to receive, compensation for your contributions to Wikipedia, you must disclose who is paying you to edit (your "employer"), who the client is, and any other relevant role or relationship." This means if you are being paid for your edits here by someone, such as The Daily Caller, you need to disclose this. It does not matter in what capacity you are being paid for those edits.

If you are being paid to edit here, there are 3 ways you can make this disclosure. In my opinion, only 2 of them are worth considering as it's too easy to forget to disclose in edit summaries. You've already sort of said stuff on the talk page of the article, but nothing that I saw seems to clearly say that you're being paid or who is paying you. I'm also not totally sure I understand the talk page requirement like whether you have to do it with every edit. So if you did want to go that route, I'd suggest asking someone else for clarification.

To keep things simple, I instead suggest you make a statement on your user page User:CharlesGlasserEsq. It's currently a red link because no one has created the page. You should feel welcome to create it, such as to make your statement. You can use the following template to do so: "{{paid|employer=The Daily Caller, Inc.|article=The Daily Caller}}" If you are being paid by the Daily Caller to edit The Daily Caller article (including propose changes on the talk page) and the details are accurate, you can copy it and paste the part between the quotation marks on your userpage and click submit. Do make sure they are also sufficient, there are other details you may be required to disclose such as when you are not being paid directly by The Daily Caller. As with everything on wikipedia, you are able to change the page afterwards, so even if you make mistakes these can be corrected.

In addition, it's also suggested you add an appropriate template to the article talk page. So at Talk:The Daily Caller, you probably want to add something like "{{Connected contributor (paid)|User1=CharlesGlasserEsq|U1-employer=The Daily Caller, Inc.}}" near the top of the page. Again, you may need to adjust this depending on the details. There is an existing template with your name, if you can't work out how to remove yourself from that don't worry. I'm sure someone else will help.

I've tried to keep this as brief as possible as I have a tendency to write very long posts that almost no one reads so I've kept the details limited. I do suggest you read Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure if you haven't already since ultimately it is your responsibility to understand and comply with it. Especially since this isn't something I deal with much so there may have been details I missed or misunderstood. Also I didn't go into some details as I wasn't sure if they were relevant. However many of us are also willing to help. So if there is stuff which confuses you, feel free to ask. Either reply here, or you can also visit WP:Help Desk or WP:Teahouse.

If you are not being paid and don't expect to be paid for your editing here and are simply doing it due to a personal friendship or connection with the website and those who run it or whatever, then no worries. I would suggest you say so, just so there is no further confusion as you have already declared a conflict of interest but at least to me, it remained unclear whether this was a paid editing conflict which has specific requirements of disclosure.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne Thanks so much and yes, I want to do everything on the "up and up" and if I miss something (like the disclosure rules you mentioned) be assured it's not monkey business but merely my being a newbie. I will look over your comments and figure out how to make clear to any and all that I am being paid in a media consultant capacity to try and break through the log jam, get past some of the acrimony that appeared regarding the article and make this a pleasant and productive thing. That serves not just the Daily Caller's interest, but goes a long way in dispelling the public perception that it's a sort of "Wikipedia Club" and that only certain people with certain agendas have control or input over what is a very powerful and important element of our modern discourse and information source. Thanks again, Charles CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 16:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Thanks. If you comply with the disclosure requirements and restrict yourself to the talk page and ensure you always use your account, I think this will go a long way to reducing any editor's concern over you. I'm not saying you will get the changes you want, this depends on whether they are support by our policies and guidelines for article content such as the the reliable secondary sources provided. But I'm hoping there will constructive discussion and if we can't make any changes we'll at least come to an understanding on why we can't. Nil Einne (talk) 11:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Nil Einne Roger that. I mentioned elsewhere that some annoying medical issues are slowing me down, and I'm going to study the policies and guidelines regarding sources, and disclosure. I'll bee back in a week or so. Cheers. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 12:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

CharlesGlasserEsq, you can remove the attempt to put the paid disclosure in your signature. You have properly disclosed and do not need to attach it to every edit you make (even at Daily Caller - it's listed there as reference). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Stop commenting on other editors and their motives

This comment is a bit over the top. You really need to stop commenting on other editors. You must focus on content, and such comments create an impression that you are not maintaining the non-aggressive profile a COI editor should maintain. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Our practice is to focus on the content not the editors. The suggestion to stay focus on the content and not editors is a good one - and one that is required by policy. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

I totally apologize if my clumsiness offended anyone. I was just expressing confusion at how it all works, particularly with regard to a statement (Daily Caller referred to themselves as “right wing”) that nobody seems willing to substantiate. I surely meant no offense.CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 03:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

CharlesGlasserEsq, no doubt. Do you understand the distinction being made here? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:49, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

CharlesGlasserEsq, to deal with your concern about "right wing", I haven't followed along on the talk page the last few days, so I'm not sure about what's happening there, but what difference does it make whether TDC has ever referred to itself as "right wing"? Even if they are so ashamed of being so that they haven't actually stated it, RS have done so, and we go by what RS say. It basically is no concern of ours whether we think they are or are not. If RS label them as "right wing", that is how we describe them. If only one marginal source does it, then we don't give that very much weight and might state that "so-and-so considers them right-wing", but if multiple RS say so, then we state it in Wikipedia's voice as fact, without attribution.

On a personal level, I'd like to get your input. I get their emails and check their content on a regular basis, and they are obviously anti-Liberal, anti-Left-wing, consistently push and back right-wing causes, POV, and politicians, defend Trump's lies, and push his conspiracy theories all the time. What does that make them? What are they in reality? Are they left-wingers or centrists who pretend to be right-wing, or are they embarrassed to admit they are right-wing, or have they actually said they are? I don't know. What do you know? -- BullRangifer (talk) 05:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. In my submission for the article itself, I will offer you RS addressing the above in a clean, orderly fashion. I'm also very clear on the "bothsidesism" issue and promise not to play that game. On a personal level, I think there's a few things that may surprise you and will give a clearer picture of what TDC is about. For one thing, Tucker Carlson has no editorial role at TDC: the publisher, Neil Patel is an non-white immigrant, so you can imagine the distress at being referred to as a "white nationalist." That asshat editor who published racist garbage under a pseudonym elsewhere was fired *before* the story about him broke.

There are scads of stories where they have exposed wrongdoing by the GOP, and soundly criticized Trump and other "right-wingers." Did you know that TDC provided videotape and reporting to authorities to help convict a gang of racists who attacked a person of color? As for RS's, I'll also provide you with several examples where TDC broke important news stories that were picked up (and credited) by a wide range of publications you would consider "mainstream" like Newsweek, The Wall St. Journal, Politico and others. I know this isn't the place to go into that detail, but thought you might find it a good curtain-raiser. Again, thanks for your effort -- I know you don't have to do this -- and for your patience as I try to navigate the sometimes mysterious waters of WP. Best, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 11:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

I am aware of several of those things, and I look forward to your next contribution at the article's talk page. Thanks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

On Paid editing through Wikipedia...

Hey there, I always have had this problem where I sympathize too much with paid editors despite never having been one myself. The difficult thing I always have to explain to paid editors is that we are a really poor place to start a positive PR campaign. The place to start would be in real life after building rapport with members of, what you would probably call, the "mainstream media" and such. If it is true that "Carlson does not have editorial input at The Daily Caller." then open up your shop and get reliable sources to back it up. Until then, the most you can hope for is a "The Daily Caller says that Carlson does not have editorial input with the publication." (and even then... not guaranteed to happen if you get on people's bad sides here)
The other important thing you can do is to provide us more free content. The article about the newspaper lacks some pretty important images. If you could took a photo of the office where you worked (like the outside), then that is something unobjectionable we could put in the article. How about a picture of an editorial board meeting? We can't use any photo you have unless you publish it under a compatible free license. Doing stuff like that would be incredibly helpful to improving The Daily Caller page. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

To CharlesGlasserEsq, your providing a photo or two as suggested would be nice, I happen to agree. To do so, it could possibly be helpful for you to work with Wikipedia's confidential and volunteer but very professional service wp:OTRS, by email correspondence, about any specific photo you wish to submit, and how to comply with free-type license requirements. This could include for semi-complicated situations, say for any usage of a photo that has previously been been published by TDC or anywhere else under copyright, where it has to be established that the owner of copyright such as TDC does really wish release it under a free-type license. --Doncram (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

composing and using named references

I see some productive discussion going on at the TDC talk page, including where you submitted a suggested change to the article. I agree with editor Levivitch(sp?) that your submission was maybe too big, actually, because as they assert it could be broken into at least 8 segments, for clarity.

Also, I saw you mention that you don't know how to do footnote reference formatting. Offhand, that is part and parcel of a proper submission, and your choosing not to do that undermines your submission / loses control. Your submission included three references at the end, as:

Sources:

 https://www.dailypress.senate.gov/?page_id=9213
 "On Christian Political Apostasy as The Source Of America's Greatest Peril" at http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/25/on-christian-political-aposta sy-as-the-source-of-americas-greatest-peril/.
 “The President’s Wall Confession Should Have Been the End of the Shutdown” at https://dailycaller.com/2019/01/20/miranda-wall-confession
 “Conservatives Shouldn’t Ignore Socialism’s Successes” at https://dailycaller.com/2019/07/06/sacks-socialism-successes

Two things of importance: 1) You could have, could still reformat those pretty easily; 2) Even more important probably, is that inline citation is needed. It generally does not work well in Wikipedia for a substantial section of text to be followed by multiple footnote references, because it is not clear which assertion within the text is supported by which footnote. It makes it harder for later editors who want to refine any statements, including because they might not have access to all of the sources in order to try to do the work to figure out which supported what. In your case, you simply will not get away without saying exactly this footnote X supports exactly this point A and this point B, while footnote Y supports C, etc. You need to understand how to "name" a footnote for multiple usages, and, frankly, you need to provide one or more footnotes at the end of each individual sentence that you submit, and perhaps even insert footnote(s) at the end of a given phrase/sub-sentence within a sentence, where relevant.

Here is my first cut at making those sources into footnotes (just put "ref" and "/ref" before and after each one, and "naming" them, i.e. creating re-usable labels):

References

Please do look at the actual text above, by viewing this section in the type of "edit" mode that shows the exact characters, not the edit mode that attempts to be wysiwyg. I "named" the second one as "peril". After the first definition of it you can cite it more than once by invocation of the label followed by a slash character, as in something like "ref name=peril/".

Here is second cut, fixing one of the urls, and beginning to break out citation fields of title, url, etc.:

References

I dunno, do you want to pay me or someone else to do this for you, before you post another suggestion? Or it is really not hard just to dive in and start to do it. The exact formatting doesn't have to be perfect. But you do need to place the footnote citations perfectly, i.e. in putting the relevant one(s) at the end of each assertion. (Not serious about asking to get paid, myself). --Doncram (talk) 19:16, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Here is my third cut, with my going to the urls and reading the sources to improve the referencing, adding citation fields of "author", "date", "accessdate", "publisher". These fields can be included in any order, but are displayed in a set sensible order. And more:

Example usage: Alan Keyes said the TDC is great, but another opinion piece says it is not However it is known that TDC is large.

References

Hope this helps. --Doncram (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

To begin to work with part of your suggested text, i try to attach references where they might be intended, and note where citations are needed:

The Daily Caller is credentialed at the White House press pool and the U.S. Senate Press gallery. Carlson does not have editorial input at The Daily Caller. The Daily Caller publishes a wide range of controversial stories investigating both liberal and conservative entities, and some stories have been proven false. The Daily Caller has also been accused of sharing deceptively edited videos and photos. The website has published articles ranging from exposes of the Sackler billionaire family’s involvement in the opioid drug crisis, to challenging the scientific consensus on climate change, Republican mismanagement of donations, and President Trump’s National Security Advisor Mike Flynn’s ties to the Turkish government. The Daily Caller has also published opinion pieces ranging from the Democratic National Committee staffer and former aide to President Obama Luis Miranda, conservative news analyst Judge Jeanine Pirro, Socialist educator Glenn Sacks, and history professor and impeachment advocate Allan J. Lichtman.

References

The passage, at least at my first glance and without my really reading the sources and perhaps citing them more, seems mostly not supported. Actually more footnotes might be needed, e.g. i don't know if the footnote to Sacks' opinion piece establishes that he is a Socialist educator, so maybe another citation is needed there, besides the one that does prove he was published by TDC. --Doncram (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

[User talk:Doncram|talk] Doncram, I cannot thank you enough for the help. I can deal with the substance (cites, more/better references, etc) but the coding is kind of tricky for a noob. I did ask the teahouse if I could pay someone to do the formatting, but the answer I got was a fairly ambiguous "that's not cool." If anyone out there disagrees and wants the extra $$ to help me upload in proper format, I'm happy to facilitate, but I desperately hope everyone understands I want to play by the rules.CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 21:47, 5 December 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

I would echo what Doncram said in regards to references. Our volunteer editors aren't here to make money (and they're fools if they are), so you're going to have to learn how to format a basic reference if you want to contribute. I don't remember if I had to change a setting to enable it but my editing screen has a big "Cite" button at the top that creates references automatically.

Besides finding sources to support the descriptions of authors, you're also going to have to show that they accurately represent the composition of TDC's authorship and aren't just a cherry-picked list meant to prove a point which would be a violation of our Original research policy. As I pointed out on article talk, you could just as easily say that they cover everything from puppies to rainbows or Stalin to Hitler. You'll need to find a secondary source that specifically discusses the breadth of coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 13:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

☎ Thanks much, and I totally get it. I'll hunt down a reliable source to make that clear. The point is (and I think you get it) that TDC is not a right-wing nut sheet and does substantial reporting (yes, of interests to conservatives) scrutinizing conservatives often, and in fact has a more diverse roster of contributors than the Article would have the ordinary reader believe. Thanks again, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 14:16, 6 December 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Hi again, thank you for taking my comment/suggestion as constructive, as it was intended. About your preparing a next submission and getting its citations well-organized/formatted, I would now further suggest you could draft something, put it into a user-space subpage, e.g. perhaps create/use User:CharlesGlasserEsq/sandbox1 or User:CharlesGlasserEsq/sandbox2. And mention here that you could use help refining its reference formatting. There are enough people watching here you could probably get help, and perhaps you could ping me or otherwise giving me notice, too. To fix up a passage like this last one would not be hard, and is not worth making arrangements to pay someone, where the fixing up is limited to getting it formatted well and not being much involved in the content/tactics discussion. Just make an attempt at doing the inline referencing, and let others help get it right in draft form, before you submit it over at the Talk:TDC page.

But about content/tactics, I did see that your submission was "smart" in trying to highlight which was existing text and which was proposed new text, which was good to do. Make it easy for reviewers, yes.

About referencing, I think you should "over-reference" in your submission, and allow others later to remove excessive referencing that is not needed and whose clutter interferes a bit with reading. E.g. in a sentence about multiple authors' opinions having been published at TDC, a general reference or two or three providing an outside characterization of the range of such would be nice, but plus also it could include a supporting note that listed a good sampling of such opinion pieces and provided links to each one. That supporting note might get deleted later as an editorial matter, but it would provide "proof" and facilitate the evaluation of the submission by your perhaps-too-attentive audience of reviewers there. :) And/or it could have inline references after each phrase within the sentence, though arguably editorially that is overkill. The point about detailed referencing in your case is to make it easy for reviewers to see that yes, each major point and sub-point is supported. While in many/most other, non-controversial Wikipedia articles, there would not be detailed review and/or there would be default acceptance/reliance upon the integrity of the editor not requiring so many footnotes. For example I work mostly on articles about historic sites listed on the National Register of Historic Places, which should not involve controversy (though oddly there has been a lot, cumulatively, over the years), and basically other editors will trust me that I am accurately reporting on what the cited document(s) say about a site, so usually just one footnote to the long general source I am using at the end of each paragraph is fine, rather than having to give multiple footnotes referring to specific page numbers where each assertion is supported. That won't work for you, you have to be more detailed.

Again, HTH, --Doncram (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)