![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
{{
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.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)
{{
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)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)
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 [1]. 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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
At [2] (they've added a correction). Found this here. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
ser talk:2600:6C56:6E00:56C:0:196E:76B9:4CCE#top|talk]]) 14:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Noto-Ichinose, please explain why you mass-removed content from the article [5], and why you insist on saying that GP "broke a story" when the cited source does not say that GP broke a story. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, when you search for The Gateway Pundit online, you get this response summary from Wikipedia:
Gateway Pundit is a conservative political blog founded by Jim Hoft after the United States presidential election, 2004. It is allied with Donald Trump and elements of the alt-right and extreme right in American politics. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.
Yet there is NOTHING in this article, and NOTHING sourced related to the claims:
1: It is allied with Donald Trump 2: It is allied with...elements of the "alt-right" 3: It is allied with..."extreme right" in American politics
This seems to be a smear job by Wikipedia, with no sourcing or corroborating info on this site related to these unsubstantiated claims. Obviously, this was purposely concocted using Weasel Words as a smear by subscribers of a certain opposing political bent, and since there is NO SOURCE for these claims, should be challenged. (Were Wikipedia actually trying to maintain impartiality, that is).
What a travesty this website has become. I no longer expect anyone to do anything about the prevelent leftward-leaning biases being propagated around here. Sad. 180.23.126.34 ( talk) 03:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "the body of the article does not identify the blog as either "conservative" or "alt-right". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
An IP number, Winkelvi and Noto-Ichinose have removed the reliably sourced description "pro-Trump" from the lede. This description is reliably sourced, and it's one of the things that this far-right conspiracy website is notable for. I'll quote my comment from a discussion in March 2017:
In addition, AP [7], Politifact [8], Politico [9], and more describe it as "pro-Trump". Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
"What this crank website calls itself has no bearing on whether we should describe it as "pro-Trump" in Wiki voice."Except it does. In another article, maybe. In the article about the website, it most certainly does matter. Especially in the lead. We don't characterize websites or television shows or news networks or songs or bands based on what reliable sources do or don't call them. You can add that sources refer to them differently than the article subject does, but you don't characterize it as such in the lead only as reliable sources refer to it and characterize it. On the websites "About" page, they refer to themselves as a political website. That's what the lead needs to say. If you want to put later on in the article that this source or that source sees it as far-right and "pro-Trump", fine. But we can't say it in Wiki-voice and it should not be in the first couple of sentences of the article lead. Also, I'm wondering if you should be editing the article at all considering this from you,
"this crank website". I really don't care what you personally think of the website, and truthfully, no one should know. Do you know what I think of the website? Nope. And that's because I don't broadcast my bias on Wikipedia nor do I let it affect my writing in Wikipedia articles. That's being neutral - as every editor needs to be (in a perfect world). Your bias against the website is now coming across in your writing/contributions here. You might want to recuse yourself from contributing if you cannot hide that bias in your editing choices. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't call it pro-Trump in Wiki-voice - especially if the website itself does not label itself as such. We don't use self-identification exclusively for organised groups, parties, individuals, etc. -- we go with what reliable sources say. Such sources are listed at the top of the thread. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
"You want to lede to say somewhere that "Gateway Pundit describes itself as "political website""? I see absolutely no reason to add that vague and pointless self-description."Why am I not surprised you see it that way? And no, I didn't say the article should say what you've quoted above.
Pinging editors who have been involved in this article's creation as well as previous discussions regarding the article and lead's WP:TONE, WP:POV, and use of terms such as "far right" and "pro-Trump". Asking them to read this entire discussion and weigh in to hopefully get a consensus. Thanks. MZMcBride, Dvlsnthedtls, 2.247.244.161, Meatsgains, It'sAllinthePhrasing, DrFleischman, Doug Weller, 180.23.126.34. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Re-pinging Fleischman since the original ping contained an error DrFleischman. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Snooganssnoogans. Does "pro-Trump" need to be in the first paragraph? We could say something like "Since 2016, news outlets including the Associated Press, Politico, and ... have described the publication as pro-Trump." in the lead section, but not in the lead paragraph. I think it can be true that news outlets describe a publication as leaning one way or another and it can also be true that it is inappropriate to inject that label into a subject's Wikipedia article so prominently. That is, while it's indisputable that outlets such as the Associated Press and Politico have described The Gateway Pundit as "pro-Trump" in their coverage, that doesn't necessarily mean we should re-use this term when explaining what The Gateway Pundit is in our encyclopedia article about it.
We should also try to view this article in its larger context: it was founded in 2004, not 2016. And it's possible that The Gateway Pundit will outlive the current Trump era. We should frame the publication in this context, in my opinion. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
"What the website did prior to 2015 is of no significance at all"Holy crap.
This is my suggestion for the lead opening paragraph:
The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a politically conservative website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004, according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left". It came to prominence in 2016 for its favorable coverage of the presidential campaign of Donald Trump[11] and has been characterized in media as not just conservative, but far-right conservative.
Over time, The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[12][13] During the 2016 presidential campaign, over a million unique visitors a day visited the website.[14] The Gateway Pundit is often linked to or cited by Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, as well as the Drudge Report, Sarah Palin, and other well-known conservative people and media outlets. The website has been criticized for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a politically far-right[2][3][4][5][6][7] website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004,[8][9] according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left".[10] It came to prominence in 2016 for its favorable coverage of the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[11]Over time, The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[12][13] During the 2016 presidential campaign, over a million unique visitors a day visited the website.[14] The Gateway Pundit is often linked to or cited by Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, as well as the Drudge Report, Sarah Palin, and other well-known conservative people and media outlets.[11] The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.[15][16][6][17]
Tryptofish, can we move ahead with your version? I support it, and seems like both Coffman and Marek support the language although they have not specifically commented on your version (they agree that "pro-Trump" can be in Wiki voice). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Should The Gateway Pundit be in italic font, instead of plain font? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
So... anyone wanna tackle the whole Wohl and Mueller stuff [16]? Volunteer Marek 02:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:405:4302:147:44AB:E681:C560:BA2E ( talk) 22:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Please remove the reference to HOAX and fake news. CNN is just as pervasive in their conspiracy theories and fake news!
Last week, the Oxford researchers released their study that concluded political news from conservative news outlets and right-wing sites like Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and The Daily Caller were circulating on Twitter more than articles from traditional sources. The researchers said they classified stories from those outlets as “junk news.” soibangla ( talk) 23:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Weasel Words... unneeded... removing
98.224.129.251 ( talk) 22:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Really? "Far right" - "fake news" - I thought this was an encyclodedia, not an opinion rag. You should remove those editorial comments masquerading as objective truth at once. Unless you are calling the Huffington Post a "far left" "fake news" site. If you do not, you are showing your true colors as a left-wing propaganda site. ProudParent 21:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gateway Pundit is identified as "fake news", effectively equating it to The Onion as per Wikipedia's definition. Although the Gateway Pundit has had its share of controversy, the Wikipedia page does not fairly portray the organization, exhibiting a clear bias. Ironically the page is locked for editing to prevent vandalism, despite the disparaging comments regarding Gateway Pundit. Please allow the organization an opportunity to correct the Wikipedia article as it appears they have been kept from doing so.
At the very least, the labelling as "fake news" should be removed. 99.244.244.241 ( talk) 13:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Concerning this diff - I reverted (to restore) the text and it was deleted again along with the source. I’m following BRD and bringing up the issue here because:
Pinging involved editor @ It'sAllinthePhrasing: Many thanks Edaham ( talk) 05:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek I'm pinging you because you were also involved in the above conversation and there haven't been replies to this thread for a few days. Edaham ( talk) 06:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, all Google search results from mobile devices for "Gateway Pundit" produce their company name, but no hyperlink to their website. Instead, a Wikipedia link is displayed, not the companies website. Since the search results data is coming from Wikipedia, can you please fix this configuration issue? No other media organizations appears to have this issue. These 3 screen shots below show the difference. Gateway Search Screenshot: https://ibb.co/MD629D2 Newsbusters.com Search Screenshot: https://ibb.co/sqX35GD WorldNetDailey.com Search Screenshot: https://ibb.co/JrcK15D
Also, can you please insert the company logo in the Infobox, or use a better Infobox, possibly "Organization". Logo is available here, from Gateway Pundits Youtube page: https://yt3.ggpht.com/a-/AAuE7mDaMZI-S-BSZ4vP0M0tX6zRu_SnsBIXemEA_A=s900-mo-c-c0xffffffff-rj-k-no
Regards, AZMedia 24.56.62.232 ( talk) 19:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the entire 2nd sentence regarding "a Fake news website".
Describing TGP in the 2nd sentence as "Fake News Website" is not only inaccurate, some would say it borders on defamation. Only two sources, Newsweek and Mediabiasfactcheck(MBFC) have proclaimed TGP as "Fake News". Newsweek reporter Shane Croucher, who is based in London, used the term as a descriptor of TGP in a 2018 article. He's uses this term in numerous other articles as a catch all phrase to define organizations, those he disagrees with, and possibly competes against. Using this young (20's) reporters words, from one article, to define an entire organization is a stretch by any standard. He's states "I tailor my copy to serve its purpose".
MBFC references errors in 4 articles and 3 parts of stories over a 2+ year span as their basis for calling TGP "fake news". That's a pretty high bar considering there are often 15-30 per day, nearly 5,000 stories annually published by TGP. If this is the standard, then a review of mistakes over just the last 90 days would qualify most major media outlets as "Fake News" groups (Covington racist actions, Trump directed Cohen to lie, Trump to fire DHS Secretary, Smollett, etc.). There has been an unheard of level or error filled reporting by major media outlets, over 75 documented media missteps, just on the President (see Sharyl Attkisson list). TGP was flagged as "Fake News" for a mere half dozen.
Oddly, MBFC's review of TGP is very in depth compared to ALL other major news organizations. MBFC lists a "Reasoning" section, mentions lawsuits, proclaims TGP identified the wrong person in their Charlottesville story, and so on. No major news organization are given this same level of scrutiny in MBFC reviews. For instance, their ABC News review has no mention that Brian Ross incorrectly named Tea Party member James Holmes as the Colorado Theater shooter. In fact, there are "zero" wrong stories mentioned, no "Reasoning", and no lawsuits listed in any major media outlet reviews by MBFC.
By comparison, MBFC states CNN as "providing misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits". Yet CNN is not listed as "Fake News" in the review. MBFC states MSNBC "publishes misleading reports, omits reporting...some sources may be untrustworthy". Yet MSNBC is not listed as "Fake News" in the review. There are numerous other media organizations with these same recurring issues. Yet not one is listed as "Fake News". Conclusion: By their own stated definition MBFC describes Fake News as "the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence". Like most news organization TGP has made errors. They have willingly made corrections immediately or removed articles. Most major news organizations won't fix errors, unless pressured. TGP understands they are under more scrutiny than most news organizations simply because they cater to a niche news audience - conservatives. This by no means should allow them to be tagged and flagged as "Fake News". Please remove the entire 2nd sentence in the Wiki profile for The Gateway Pundit.
Regards, AZMedia 24.56.62.232 ( talk) 13:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
Source does not support the content as it appeared in the edit:
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)
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.
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)
@ 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)
{{
Wikiproject banner shell|blpo=yes|1=…}}
or similar. –
84.46.52.48 (
talk) 18:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)No need to keep yrs-old discussions. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
On 1 March 2020, Objective3000 reverted my edit, thereby restoring a citation that links to a deprecated source—The Gateway Pundit. In the edit summary, Objective3000 asserted that the source "can be used in an article about itself" and linked to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. In relevant part, that section reads:
The primary exception to deprecation is that deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves ( WP:ABOUTSELF).
However, the disputed reference in this instance meets neither of those exceptions. It's a story by Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit′s founder, headlined "Bad Blood: Judge Kavanaugh's Mother Presided Over Far Left Accuser's Parents' Home Foreclosure (UPDATED)". Hoft's story does not discuss The Gateway Pundit, nor does he therein describe his own viewpoint or provide other information about the site itself.
Accordingly, I request consensus to delete this reference to a deprecated source. NedFausa ( talk) 15:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
One user recently reverted text [34] 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)
Unless you went to the company site itself to create an official description then it is not reliable source. Anything else can be created under a controversy tab. I will contact gateway to make sure they take all appropriate measures with Wikipedia do to this unethical vandalism if somebody who has the mental acuity of a fruit fly Rfrf101 ( talk) 09:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
They are rampant. WP cites a NPOV policy (neutral point of view), and yet calling the website "far-right and pro-Trump" shows extreme bias, and is anything but a neutral point of view. All this writer did was to add one word: "unapologetically", and it was reverted right away not once, but twice. If you're going to call GP a far-right website, you should (but you won't) call yourself (WP) unapologetically far-left, and there's really nothing wrong with being biased one way or another, as long as you're up-front about it, it's a free world. "Unapologetic" is a mere adjective, nothing more; there are numerous other adjectives that this writer does not object to, and this writer merely wishes to have the one adjective added, for qualification of the numerous other biases existent in the body of the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Gateway_Pundit&type=revision&diff=850934288&oldid=850934205 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c56:6e00:56c:0:196e:76b9:4cce ( talk) 16:37, 18 July 2018
Mark Levin is every bit as reliable as anyone writing in the WP NYT on CNN or MSNBC etc. Your bias is the reason Wikipedia has gone from a useful resource to an agenda driven leftist organization. SaxxonFeud ( talk) 17:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
GP published this diatribe [41] whining about this Wikipedia page. Apparently, we have "smeared" a "trusted" website such as GP. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)]
Smearing can go both ways. Rsb97080 ( talk) 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajdellinger/2021/02/06/twitter-suspends-gateway-pundit-jim-hoft/?ss=consumertech&sh=40dbdb223653 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.12.225.19 ( talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the statement from; "The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right[8] news and opinion website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories."
To read; "The Gateway Pundit is an American news-based media website that presents the news without bias. Unlike far-left media outlets like NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and others that choose to manipulate their audiences in order to advance their Marxist agenda, The Gateway Pundit is known for publishing the truth and allowing their readers to decide." Donarcher ( talk) 14:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, the article clearly violates the neutrality policy already, so leaving it as-is yields the same result. Unless Wikipedia now has a very warped definition of neutrality. Note: I'll only respond to constructive remarks; fallacious arguments (including insults and cognitive dissonance) will be ignored. Lee Carré ( talk) 22:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gateway Pundit is not a fake news site. Its Wiki page appears to have been edited by someone who is afraid of the truth. This needs to be edited out. Ghoppr71 ( talk) 11:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove anything referring "The Gateway Pundit" as anything relating to, but not limited to: Hoaxes, falsehoods, fake news, far-right, mis/disinformation. Those listed are in and of itself are false and is subjective opinion rather than objective, provable fact. Shredhead55 ( talk) 19:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website" to "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] news website". "Fake news" is a meaningless political label and shouldn't be used by any side. All the sources that are cited for its designation as "fake" are exclusively left and far-left that themselves were periodically accused of being fake news by prominent political figures in the US and abroad. Please don't cave to biased editors, they don't have a monopoly on assigning political labels as they please. Prtsn2021 ( talk) 23:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 23:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:780:8201:BDA0:942C:C563:5BCC:756E ( talk) 05:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Isi96 User edited this page and that user is now deleted? This page is false
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gate way Pundit is not fake news, Who ever protect this script is not have a truthful opinion and should be re edited Dizzydaddy ( talk) 20:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:FORUM and WP:TALK violation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
100% fake media bias towards GP, one of the better sources of real news and events happening in world of politics. whoever disagrees is a leftist hack. The article for this website opens as follows "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[21]" Whether it is or is not "Fake News" is up to the reader, not the writer, as is what the site is "known for". Suggest a removal of these loaded terms, especially considering they make up the entirety of an opening sentence.
The first reference I checked failed to support the assertion. In fact, its only mention of The Gateway Pundit said it is diminishing in engagement ... something ambiguous but actually tending toward the opposite of what is claimed here. However, I will not waste my time editing this nonsense. You Leftist editors may think you are winning when people like me drop out of this game, but in fact you have already lost. And Wikipedia loses too, when its credibility is shredded by partisan articles like this one. To Wikipedia I say, borrowing the parlance of my kids, "You do you". Taquito1 ( talk) 12:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC) It's obvious that they're politically bias towards thr website. If you look into the users history if revolves around "right wing conspiracies." This page needs to be accurately edited. Xchrisjbx ( talk) 21:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC) All 5 references are from books, or short papers a person wrote - meaning it's just his or her opinion in those sources - you know what they say about opinions right? Everyone has one. But since this is Wikipedia and it's ran by people with a left wing agenda as even it's co-founder Larry Sanger has said, and tells people to avoid this place due to that, it's not a surprise to see such a childish and NOT fact driven smear as the first sentence about a right leaning website. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:7110:1104:8AD0:3000 ( talk)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gateway Pundit is a reputable conservative news source not far right fake news !! 67.21.191.87 ( talk) 10:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
It's fairly clear mate, the user is espousing the opinion that the article as listed is biased instead of being neutral as preferred within wikipedia parlance. IE, the editor's political preferences are showing, instead of maintaining neutrality as they should. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:A8D1:4226:D25D:611B ( talk) 11:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "fake news" to "news". Whether you agree with their reporting or not, this is defamatory. 24.170.246.242 ( talk) 17:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)bad troll is bad
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
No wonder nobody trusts Wikipedia anymore, and you founder is extremely disappointed in what you have become. This is why Wikipedia is viewed as a joke. I was so disappointed with this entry that I signed up and had to make this comment. You "minders" are the problem. When free speech is restricted, everybody suffers. Why don't you head over to North Korea or China? This is how they operate. Nobody wins with censorship. H60ace ( talk) 21:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
bad troll is bad
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
you can't call it a "fake news" website. Wiki loses credibility with that sort of hyperbole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.229.88 ( talk) 01:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The above argument conflates WP:Reliable with the logical fallacy of: Argument from authority. Please check them out to clear up this disagreement. It is not our job as editors to cherry pick references to craft the "one true truth." It doesn't exist. Our job is to find the various viewpoints, source them and we're done. Pissing contests like above are pointless. Lexlex ( talk) 12:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After researching The Gateway Pundit I have discovered they are a legitimate news outlet. Not a fake news outlet. It is not far right. Edits need to be made to show the facts. The current description reads as slander and not truthful. Truthprotectr ( talk) 10:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Truth Truthprotectr ( talk) 10:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Quite absurd to call The Gateway Pundit a "fake news website". The Gateway Pundit has a better track record of reporting accurate news than the Washington Post or the New York Times. Also the label "far-right" is not accurate, its bias is normal moderate center-right (as in the sense of how center-right was understood only 20 years ago).
Please correct this, this is a violation of the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. Der Eberswalder ( talk) 13:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Unhelpful rant and personal attacks |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sorry but Wikipedia should be neutral, this page is clearly biased toward radical left wing talking point and in violation of NPOV, power administrators are ruining the website 2600:1700:3D94:40:4011:4FB3:657E:1D96 ( talk) 21:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
|
Gateway Pundit started the ERIC conspiracy; See "Up First" podcast and NPR report. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F89C:8F5C:A581:52F4 ( talk) 12:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you mean CNN
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
216.114.124.40 ( talk) 12:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
First sentence is a matter of opinion. Should read The Gateway Pundit is a far right news website considered by some readers to be fake news. It has been accused by some of perpetrating hoaxes, but this allegation is not proven. 97.73.100.64 ( talk) 15:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Blatant libel and slander of a credible news source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A270:2FF0:2525:850:5EFC:8D0 ( talk) 16:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
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)
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)
{{
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.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)
{{
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)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)
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 [1]. 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)
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)
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)
@ 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)
At [2] (they've added a correction). Found this here. Doug Weller talk 12:55, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
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)
(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)
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)
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)
ser talk:2600:6C56:6E00:56C:0:196E:76B9:4CCE#top|talk]]) 14:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
Noto-Ichinose, please explain why you mass-removed content from the article [5], and why you insist on saying that GP "broke a story" when the cited source does not say that GP broke a story. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:19, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi, when you search for The Gateway Pundit online, you get this response summary from Wikipedia:
Gateway Pundit is a conservative political blog founded by Jim Hoft after the United States presidential election, 2004. It is allied with Donald Trump and elements of the alt-right and extreme right in American politics. The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.
Yet there is NOTHING in this article, and NOTHING sourced related to the claims:
1: It is allied with Donald Trump 2: It is allied with...elements of the "alt-right" 3: It is allied with..."extreme right" in American politics
This seems to be a smear job by Wikipedia, with no sourcing or corroborating info on this site related to these unsubstantiated claims. Obviously, this was purposely concocted using Weasel Words as a smear by subscribers of a certain opposing political bent, and since there is NO SOURCE for these claims, should be challenged. (Were Wikipedia actually trying to maintain impartiality, that is).
What a travesty this website has become. I no longer expect anyone to do anything about the prevelent leftward-leaning biases being propagated around here. Sad. 180.23.126.34 ( talk) 03:53, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "the body of the article does not identify the blog as either "conservative" or "alt-right". -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:06, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
An IP number, Winkelvi and Noto-Ichinose have removed the reliably sourced description "pro-Trump" from the lede. This description is reliably sourced, and it's one of the things that this far-right conspiracy website is notable for. I'll quote my comment from a discussion in March 2017:
In addition, AP [7], Politifact [8], Politico [9], and more describe it as "pro-Trump". Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 17:57, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
"What this crank website calls itself has no bearing on whether we should describe it as "pro-Trump" in Wiki voice."Except it does. In another article, maybe. In the article about the website, it most certainly does matter. Especially in the lead. We don't characterize websites or television shows or news networks or songs or bands based on what reliable sources do or don't call them. You can add that sources refer to them differently than the article subject does, but you don't characterize it as such in the lead only as reliable sources refer to it and characterize it. On the websites "About" page, they refer to themselves as a political website. That's what the lead needs to say. If you want to put later on in the article that this source or that source sees it as far-right and "pro-Trump", fine. But we can't say it in Wiki-voice and it should not be in the first couple of sentences of the article lead. Also, I'm wondering if you should be editing the article at all considering this from you,
"this crank website". I really don't care what you personally think of the website, and truthfully, no one should know. Do you know what I think of the website? Nope. And that's because I don't broadcast my bias on Wikipedia nor do I let it affect my writing in Wikipedia articles. That's being neutral - as every editor needs to be (in a perfect world). Your bias against the website is now coming across in your writing/contributions here. You might want to recuse yourself from contributing if you cannot hide that bias in your editing choices. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:08, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia can't call it pro-Trump in Wiki-voice - especially if the website itself does not label itself as such. We don't use self-identification exclusively for organised groups, parties, individuals, etc. -- we go with what reliable sources say. Such sources are listed at the top of the thread. K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:33, 4 August 2018 (UTC)
"You want to lede to say somewhere that "Gateway Pundit describes itself as "political website""? I see absolutely no reason to add that vague and pointless self-description."Why am I not surprised you see it that way? And no, I didn't say the article should say what you've quoted above.
Pinging editors who have been involved in this article's creation as well as previous discussions regarding the article and lead's WP:TONE, WP:POV, and use of terms such as "far right" and "pro-Trump". Asking them to read this entire discussion and weigh in to hopefully get a consensus. Thanks. MZMcBride, Dvlsnthedtls, 2.247.244.161, Meatsgains, It'sAllinthePhrasing, DrFleischman, Doug Weller, 180.23.126.34. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:07, 5 August 2018 (UTC) Re-pinging Fleischman since the original ping contained an error DrFleischman. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi Snooganssnoogans. Does "pro-Trump" need to be in the first paragraph? We could say something like "Since 2016, news outlets including the Associated Press, Politico, and ... have described the publication as pro-Trump." in the lead section, but not in the lead paragraph. I think it can be true that news outlets describe a publication as leaning one way or another and it can also be true that it is inappropriate to inject that label into a subject's Wikipedia article so prominently. That is, while it's indisputable that outlets such as the Associated Press and Politico have described The Gateway Pundit as "pro-Trump" in their coverage, that doesn't necessarily mean we should re-use this term when explaining what The Gateway Pundit is in our encyclopedia article about it.
We should also try to view this article in its larger context: it was founded in 2004, not 2016. And it's possible that The Gateway Pundit will outlive the current Trump era. We should frame the publication in this context, in my opinion. -- MZMcBride ( talk) 14:45, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
"What the website did prior to 2015 is of no significance at all"Holy crap.
This is my suggestion for the lead opening paragraph:
The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a politically conservative website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004, according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left". It came to prominence in 2016 for its favorable coverage of the presidential campaign of Donald Trump[11] and has been characterized in media as not just conservative, but far-right conservative.
Over time, The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[12][13] During the 2016 presidential campaign, over a million unique visitors a day visited the website.[14] The Gateway Pundit is often linked to or cited by Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, as well as the Drudge Report, Sarah Palin, and other well-known conservative people and media outlets. The website has been criticized for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.
-- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:29, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is a politically far-right[2][3][4][5][6][7] website. It was founded after the United States presidential election in 2004,[8][9] according to its founder Jim Hoft, to "speak the truth" and to "expose the wickedness of the left".[10] It came to prominence in 2016 for its favorable coverage of the presidential campaign of Donald Trump.[11]Over time, The Gateway Pundit expanded from a one-person enterprise into a multi-employee operation that is supported primarily by advertising revenue.[12][13] During the 2016 presidential campaign, over a million unique visitors a day visited the website.[14] The Gateway Pundit is often linked to or cited by Fox News commentator Sean Hannity, as well as the Drudge Report, Sarah Palin, and other well-known conservative people and media outlets.[11] The website is known for publishing falsehoods and spreading hoaxes.[15][16][6][17]
Tryptofish, can we move ahead with your version? I support it, and seems like both Coffman and Marek support the language although they have not specifically commented on your version (they agree that "pro-Trump" can be in Wiki voice). Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 22:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
Should The Gateway Pundit be in italic font, instead of plain font? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)
So... anyone wanna tackle the whole Wohl and Mueller stuff [16]? Volunteer Marek 02:43, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:405:4302:147:44AB:E681:C560:BA2E ( talk) 22:31, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Please remove the reference to HOAX and fake news. CNN is just as pervasive in their conspiracy theories and fake news!
Last week, the Oxford researchers released their study that concluded political news from conservative news outlets and right-wing sites like Breitbart, Gateway Pundit and The Daily Caller were circulating on Twitter more than articles from traditional sources. The researchers said they classified stories from those outlets as “junk news.” soibangla ( talk) 23:16, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Weasel Words... unneeded... removing
98.224.129.251 ( talk) 22:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Really? "Far right" - "fake news" - I thought this was an encyclodedia, not an opinion rag. You should remove those editorial comments masquerading as objective truth at once. Unless you are calling the Huffington Post a "far left" "fake news" site. If you do not, you are showing your true colors as a left-wing propaganda site. ProudParent 21:14, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gateway Pundit is identified as "fake news", effectively equating it to The Onion as per Wikipedia's definition. Although the Gateway Pundit has had its share of controversy, the Wikipedia page does not fairly portray the organization, exhibiting a clear bias. Ironically the page is locked for editing to prevent vandalism, despite the disparaging comments regarding Gateway Pundit. Please allow the organization an opportunity to correct the Wikipedia article as it appears they have been kept from doing so.
At the very least, the labelling as "fake news" should be removed. 99.244.244.241 ( talk) 13:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Concerning this diff - I reverted (to restore) the text and it was deleted again along with the source. I’m following BRD and bringing up the issue here because:
Pinging involved editor @ It'sAllinthePhrasing: Many thanks Edaham ( talk) 05:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek I'm pinging you because you were also involved in the above conversation and there haven't been replies to this thread for a few days. Edaham ( talk) 06:27, 7 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Currently, all Google search results from mobile devices for "Gateway Pundit" produce their company name, but no hyperlink to their website. Instead, a Wikipedia link is displayed, not the companies website. Since the search results data is coming from Wikipedia, can you please fix this configuration issue? No other media organizations appears to have this issue. These 3 screen shots below show the difference. Gateway Search Screenshot: https://ibb.co/MD629D2 Newsbusters.com Search Screenshot: https://ibb.co/sqX35GD WorldNetDailey.com Search Screenshot: https://ibb.co/JrcK15D
Also, can you please insert the company logo in the Infobox, or use a better Infobox, possibly "Organization". Logo is available here, from Gateway Pundits Youtube page: https://yt3.ggpht.com/a-/AAuE7mDaMZI-S-BSZ4vP0M0tX6zRu_SnsBIXemEA_A=s900-mo-c-c0xffffffff-rj-k-no
Regards, AZMedia 24.56.62.232 ( talk) 19:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the entire 2nd sentence regarding "a Fake news website".
Describing TGP in the 2nd sentence as "Fake News Website" is not only inaccurate, some would say it borders on defamation. Only two sources, Newsweek and Mediabiasfactcheck(MBFC) have proclaimed TGP as "Fake News". Newsweek reporter Shane Croucher, who is based in London, used the term as a descriptor of TGP in a 2018 article. He's uses this term in numerous other articles as a catch all phrase to define organizations, those he disagrees with, and possibly competes against. Using this young (20's) reporters words, from one article, to define an entire organization is a stretch by any standard. He's states "I tailor my copy to serve its purpose".
MBFC references errors in 4 articles and 3 parts of stories over a 2+ year span as their basis for calling TGP "fake news". That's a pretty high bar considering there are often 15-30 per day, nearly 5,000 stories annually published by TGP. If this is the standard, then a review of mistakes over just the last 90 days would qualify most major media outlets as "Fake News" groups (Covington racist actions, Trump directed Cohen to lie, Trump to fire DHS Secretary, Smollett, etc.). There has been an unheard of level or error filled reporting by major media outlets, over 75 documented media missteps, just on the President (see Sharyl Attkisson list). TGP was flagged as "Fake News" for a mere half dozen.
Oddly, MBFC's review of TGP is very in depth compared to ALL other major news organizations. MBFC lists a "Reasoning" section, mentions lawsuits, proclaims TGP identified the wrong person in their Charlottesville story, and so on. No major news organization are given this same level of scrutiny in MBFC reviews. For instance, their ABC News review has no mention that Brian Ross incorrectly named Tea Party member James Holmes as the Colorado Theater shooter. In fact, there are "zero" wrong stories mentioned, no "Reasoning", and no lawsuits listed in any major media outlet reviews by MBFC.
By comparison, MBFC states CNN as "providing misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits". Yet CNN is not listed as "Fake News" in the review. MBFC states MSNBC "publishes misleading reports, omits reporting...some sources may be untrustworthy". Yet MSNBC is not listed as "Fake News" in the review. There are numerous other media organizations with these same recurring issues. Yet not one is listed as "Fake News". Conclusion: By their own stated definition MBFC describes Fake News as "the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence". Like most news organization TGP has made errors. They have willingly made corrections immediately or removed articles. Most major news organizations won't fix errors, unless pressured. TGP understands they are under more scrutiny than most news organizations simply because they cater to a niche news audience - conservatives. This by no means should allow them to be tagged and flagged as "Fake News". Please remove the entire 2nd sentence in the Wiki profile for The Gateway Pundit.
Regards, AZMedia 24.56.62.232 ( talk) 13:45, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:01, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
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)
Source does not support the content as it appeared in the edit:
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)
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.
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)
@ 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)
{{
Wikiproject banner shell|blpo=yes|1=…}}
or similar. –
84.46.52.48 (
talk) 18:06, 28 March 2019 (UTC)No need to keep yrs-old discussions. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
On 1 March 2020, Objective3000 reverted my edit, thereby restoring a citation that links to a deprecated source—The Gateway Pundit. In the edit summary, Objective3000 asserted that the source "can be used in an article about itself" and linked to Wikipedia:Deprecated sources § Acceptable uses of deprecated sources. In relevant part, that section reads:
The primary exception to deprecation is that deprecated sources can normally be cited as a primary source when the source itself is the subject of discussion, such as to describe its own viewpoint. The verifiability policy provides an additional exception: a questionable source may be used for information on itself, subject to the conditions in Wikipedia:Verifiability § Self-published or questionable sources as sources on themselves ( WP:ABOUTSELF).
However, the disputed reference in this instance meets neither of those exceptions. It's a story by Jim Hoft, The Gateway Pundit′s founder, headlined "Bad Blood: Judge Kavanaugh's Mother Presided Over Far Left Accuser's Parents' Home Foreclosure (UPDATED)". Hoft's story does not discuss The Gateway Pundit, nor does he therein describe his own viewpoint or provide other information about the site itself.
Accordingly, I request consensus to delete this reference to a deprecated source. NedFausa ( talk) 15:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
One user recently reverted text [34] 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)
Unless you went to the company site itself to create an official description then it is not reliable source. Anything else can be created under a controversy tab. I will contact gateway to make sure they take all appropriate measures with Wikipedia do to this unethical vandalism if somebody who has the mental acuity of a fruit fly Rfrf101 ( talk) 09:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
They are rampant. WP cites a NPOV policy (neutral point of view), and yet calling the website "far-right and pro-Trump" shows extreme bias, and is anything but a neutral point of view. All this writer did was to add one word: "unapologetically", and it was reverted right away not once, but twice. If you're going to call GP a far-right website, you should (but you won't) call yourself (WP) unapologetically far-left, and there's really nothing wrong with being biased one way or another, as long as you're up-front about it, it's a free world. "Unapologetic" is a mere adjective, nothing more; there are numerous other adjectives that this writer does not object to, and this writer merely wishes to have the one adjective added, for qualification of the numerous other biases existent in the body of the article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Gateway_Pundit&type=revision&diff=850934288&oldid=850934205 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6c56:6e00:56c:0:196e:76b9:4cce ( talk) 16:37, 18 July 2018
Mark Levin is every bit as reliable as anyone writing in the WP NYT on CNN or MSNBC etc. Your bias is the reason Wikipedia has gone from a useful resource to an agenda driven leftist organization. SaxxonFeud ( talk) 17:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
GP published this diatribe [41] whining about this Wikipedia page. Apparently, we have "smeared" a "trusted" website such as GP. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)]
Smearing can go both ways. Rsb97080 ( talk) 05:14, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajdellinger/2021/02/06/twitter-suspends-gateway-pundit-jim-hoft/?ss=consumertech&sh=40dbdb223653 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.12.225.19 ( talk) 00:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change the statement from; "The Gateway Pundit is an American far-right[8] news and opinion website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories."
To read; "The Gateway Pundit is an American news-based media website that presents the news without bias. Unlike far-left media outlets like NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, and others that choose to manipulate their audiences in order to advance their Marxist agenda, The Gateway Pundit is known for publishing the truth and allowing their readers to decide." Donarcher ( talk) 14:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, the article clearly violates the neutrality policy already, so leaving it as-is yields the same result. Unless Wikipedia now has a very warped definition of neutrality. Note: I'll only respond to constructive remarks; fallacious arguments (including insults and cognitive dissonance) will be ignored. Lee Carré ( talk) 22:24, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gateway Pundit is not a fake news site. Its Wiki page appears to have been edited by someone who is afraid of the truth. This needs to be edited out. Ghoppr71 ( talk) 11:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove anything referring "The Gateway Pundit" as anything relating to, but not limited to: Hoaxes, falsehoods, fake news, far-right, mis/disinformation. Those listed are in and of itself are false and is subjective opinion rather than objective, provable fact. Shredhead55 ( talk) 19:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 23:20, 20 June 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website" to "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] news website". "Fake news" is a meaningless political label and shouldn't be used by any side. All the sources that are cited for its designation as "fake" are exclusively left and far-left that themselves were periodically accused of being fake news by prominent political figures in the US and abroad. Please don't cave to biased editors, they don't have a monopoly on assigning political labels as they please. Prtsn2021 ( talk) 23:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 23:23, 29 June 2021 (UTC)![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
2601:780:8201:BDA0:942C:C563:5BCC:756E ( talk) 05:11, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Isi96 User edited this page and that user is now deleted? This page is false
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gate way Pundit is not fake news, Who ever protect this script is not have a truthful opinion and should be re edited Dizzydaddy ( talk) 20:37, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
WP:FORUM and WP:TALK violation |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
100% fake media bias towards GP, one of the better sources of real news and events happening in world of politics. whoever disagrees is a leftist hack. The article for this website opens as follows "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right[2] fake news website.[1] The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories.[21]" Whether it is or is not "Fake News" is up to the reader, not the writer, as is what the site is "known for". Suggest a removal of these loaded terms, especially considering they make up the entirety of an opening sentence.
The first reference I checked failed to support the assertion. In fact, its only mention of The Gateway Pundit said it is diminishing in engagement ... something ambiguous but actually tending toward the opposite of what is claimed here. However, I will not waste my time editing this nonsense. You Leftist editors may think you are winning when people like me drop out of this game, but in fact you have already lost. And Wikipedia loses too, when its credibility is shredded by partisan articles like this one. To Wikipedia I say, borrowing the parlance of my kids, "You do you". Taquito1 ( talk) 12:48, 10 July 2021 (UTC) It's obvious that they're politically bias towards thr website. If you look into the users history if revolves around "right wing conspiracies." This page needs to be accurately edited. Xchrisjbx ( talk) 21:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC) All 5 references are from books, or short papers a person wrote - meaning it's just his or her opinion in those sources - you know what they say about opinions right? Everyone has one. But since this is Wikipedia and it's ran by people with a left wing agenda as even it's co-founder Larry Sanger has said, and tells people to avoid this place due to that, it's not a surprise to see such a childish and NOT fact driven smear as the first sentence about a right leaning website. 2600:1700:1EC1:30C0:7110:1104:8AD0:3000 ( talk)
|
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Gateway Pundit is a reputable conservative news source not far right fake news !! 67.21.191.87 ( talk) 10:35, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
It's fairly clear mate, the user is espousing the opinion that the article as listed is biased instead of being neutral as preferred within wikipedia parlance. IE, the editor's political preferences are showing, instead of maintaining neutrality as they should. 2605:A601:A880:8C00:A8D1:4226:D25D:611B ( talk) 11:19, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Change "fake news" to "news". Whether you agree with their reporting or not, this is defamatory. 24.170.246.242 ( talk) 17:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
ScottishFinnishRadish (
talk) 17:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)bad troll is bad
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:20, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
No wonder nobody trusts Wikipedia anymore, and you founder is extremely disappointed in what you have become. This is why Wikipedia is viewed as a joke. I was so disappointed with this entry that I signed up and had to make this comment. You "minders" are the problem. When free speech is restricted, everybody suffers. Why don't you head over to North Korea or China? This is how they operate. Nobody wins with censorship. H60ace ( talk) 21:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
|
![]() | This discussion has been disrupted by
block evasion,
ban evasion, or
sockpuppetry from the following user:
Comments from this user should be excluded from assessments of consensus. |
bad troll is bad
Dronebogus (
talk) 22:21, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
|
---|
you can't call it a "fake news" website. Wiki loses credibility with that sort of hyperbole — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.3.229.88 ( talk) 01:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The above argument conflates WP:Reliable with the logical fallacy of: Argument from authority. Please check them out to clear up this disagreement. It is not our job as editors to cherry pick references to craft the "one true truth." It doesn't exist. Our job is to find the various viewpoints, source them and we're done. Pissing contests like above are pointless. Lexlex ( talk) 12:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC) |
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After researching The Gateway Pundit I have discovered they are a legitimate news outlet. Not a fake news outlet. It is not far right. Edits need to be made to show the facts. The current description reads as slander and not truthful. Truthprotectr ( talk) 10:40, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Truth Truthprotectr ( talk) 10:41, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Quite absurd to call The Gateway Pundit a "fake news website". The Gateway Pundit has a better track record of reporting accurate news than the Washington Post or the New York Times. Also the label "far-right" is not accurate, its bias is normal moderate center-right (as in the sense of how center-right was understood only 20 years ago).
Please correct this, this is a violation of the Neutral Point of View policy of Wikipedia. Der Eberswalder ( talk) 13:05, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Unhelpful rant and personal attacks |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Sorry but Wikipedia should be neutral, this page is clearly biased toward radical left wing talking point and in violation of NPOV, power administrators are ruining the website 2600:1700:3D94:40:4011:4FB3:657E:1D96 ( talk) 21:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
|
Gateway Pundit started the ERIC conspiracy; See "Up First" podcast and NPR report. 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:F89C:8F5C:A581:52F4 ( talk) 12:29, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I think you mean CNN
![]() | This
edit request to
The Gateway Pundit has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
216.114.124.40 ( talk) 12:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
First sentence is a matter of opinion. Should read The Gateway Pundit is a far right news website considered by some readers to be fake news. It has been accused by some of perpetrating hoaxes, but this allegation is not proven. 97.73.100.64 ( talk) 15:44, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Blatant libel and slander of a credible news source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:A270:2FF0:2525:850:5EFC:8D0 ( talk) 16:34, 12 October 2023 (UTC)