Talk:Matt Drudge/Archive 3

Global Warming Denier

• Crackpot, have you ever listened to Drudge's radio show? The "I don't buy it" (in ref to global warming) is a direct quote from one of his shows. No, I do not have the transcript. I suggest you stop micro-editing each and every addition to this page, discarding everything for which there is no web citation. Have a look at the page on Michael Savage, where numerous statements describing his opinions are allowed without a citation for each and every one. If Drudge has a different opinion on GW to what I have stated, rest assured, some other soul will happen along to correct me. This page does not need your obsessive policing and reversions for little or no reason. Skopp (Talk) 04:03, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In fact, I surprise myself with my deftness. Here is the podcast containing the opinion cited: http://media.libsyn.com/media/drudgepodcast/Drudge_20070225_1.mp3 Skopp (Talk) 04:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Listen up, Buttercup.

1. Before my one edit today, I have not edited this article since December 7, 2006. If anyone is obsessively editing this article, it is you, with your attempts to add gay references, etc.
2. Calling me Crackpot is clearly a personal attack, as is accusing me of obsessively editing when the edit history clearly shows that you are completely full of shit.
3. Reinserting (still) unsourced material that has been previously removed from a biography of a living person is a violation of WP:BLP, and a blockable offence. You've violated WP:BLP countless times on this article in the past, and I have not sought any sanctions against you. I think you have misjudged my previous generosity, and believe that you can just attack me with cute names and a completely unfounded accusation of "obsession", and not suffer concequences for that action. You are wrong.
4. My edit history is quite rich and varied. Yours appears to be heavily weighted in an interest in Matt Drudge and zoophilia. I think someone here does have unhealthy obsessions, and it isn't me.

If you think I'm obsessed, wait twenty minutes. You're about to get into a pissing match with someone who has a full bladder. I hope you have your slicker on. - Crockspot 05:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Responding to what you see as a personal attack with your own personal attack hardly paints you in a good light, does it now? If you want to challenge my latest edit, make sure you have some basis other than your usual whims. I suggest you try to calm down and regain some objectivity here. Your swearing and threats seem to denote a complete lack of the spirit required for an editor! Skopp (Talk) 08:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Avoiding the valid points I listed above does little to endear you to other editors as well. You have nothing to say about accusing me of obsessively editing an article that I did not edit for two and a half months? You are chronically uncivil to other editors, as you have been with me from your very first communication with me on your talk page several months ago. I've had enough of it, and you now have my complete and undivided attention. Start acting like an adult, and you'll be treated like one. - Crockspot 13:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not revert my addition again! You are starting an edit war over a non-contentious inclusion that I can back up in every way. 1) MD thinks GW is bunk - everyone who reads/listens to him knows that that is true, and 2) GW is a fact supported by a majority of the world's climate scientists, and if you stopped listening to right wing talk radio for a second and read the scientific opinion on climate change you'd conceded that too. Back off, full bladder. This is not a place for you to settle grudges. Skopp (Talk) 15:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, since you seem to have absolutely no idea what the IPCC actually is: "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was set up by the United Nations in 1988 to assess the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant for the understanding of the risk of human induced climate change. About 1,000 experts from around the world are involved in drafting, revising and finalizing IPCC reports. About 2,500 experts take part in the report review process. Thus, the IPCC represents a global consensus of the world's climate change experts." Now if you can find a respectable source (not Fox News) disputing the stature of the IPCC, I'll change the wording. Skopp (Talk) 15:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Removed, as you have still not sourced it. Instead of continuing to attack me personally, why don't you just cite a source like I have asked? You are headed for a BLP block if you insist on reinserting this statement without even trying to source it. - Crockspot 16:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Skopp--For the last time, Wikipedia is not your soap-box! The Matt Drudge article is not an appropriate place for your personal crusade or for social activism. Giles22 16:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

That's a completely inappropriate comment. My edit is absolutely accurate and acceptable. Are there any editors watching this who are agenda-free and can input something? Crackspot's user page actually states that he's a conservative with an agenda of making sure nobody inserts anything of which he doesn't approve on the pages of Conservatives -- I mean, how blatant can you get? Anyone non-partisan here who can chime in? Sheez. I mean here we have two editors (Crock and Giles) who regard the IPCC as a non-consensual organization, and the stating that it is a globally consensual body as editorial opinion!! Am I in cloud cuckoo land or what? Skopp (Talk) 17:05, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You are misinterpreting my comments. I am not dipsuting the content of what you post. In fact, I agree with it (I am not a climate change skeptic). I am still, however, disconcerted with you inserting a global warming argument into this article about MATT DRUDGE. That is editorializing and social crusading which simply does not belong here. Giles22 01:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, the heading of the section is Criticisms if I am not mistaken. I was struck by how many criticisms I have come across on the blogosphere and elsewhere about Drudge's almost daily lampooning of anything to do with Global Warming. It's become one of his major themes, and it's is irking the hell out of a lot of people out there (not me, BTW, because what do I care about the tiny thoughts of someone who barely scraped through high school?). I simply inserted the obvious edit: MD tries to debunk GW; scientific world (vast majority) disagree. I see no problem with this at all. There is no "global warming argument" anywhere to be seen! Reading comprehension a problem for you? Skopp (Talk) 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

He doesn't care whether you agree or disagree with him. If you question one of his edits, you're fair game for attack.K. Scott Bailey 01:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on now, Bailey, I thought you were playing the White Knight here? That didn't last long. Now it's into the fray with sides taken, eh? Skopp (Talk) 02:30, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

When you felt the need to personally attack me after my first post in this discussion, it told me all I needed to know about what you're all about. You've personally attacked anyone who dared disagree with your many edits. There's no place for that kind of behavior in Wikipedia. Therefore, if anyone lodges a complaint against you, I'll be the first in line to support it.K. Scott Bailey 02:38, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

By my count I "attacked" your second post, leaving your (completely unfair and overblown) description of my Talk posts as "reprehensible" untouched. So once again, where's the reading comprehension, where's the accuracy, where's the fairness? And I'm not attacking you anyway, just commenting on your complete transformation from arbiter to stone-thrower. For shame. Skopp (Talk) 03:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not an admin. In fact, I'm rather new to Wikipedia. You must be confusing me with someone else. As I said before, based upon the behavior you've exhibited towards Crockspot and others (as well as myself), I will support any complaint lodged against you. It's nothing personal, but is simply based upon what I've observed from you in this discussion.K. Scott Bailey 03:15, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, that was mistaken identity. As for your views about me, my findings are that on pages such as these, populated as they are by editors who are mostly foot-soldiers for their political parties *cough*teapot*cough (yeah, even with the assumption of good faith, sadly), I find your contrived outrage very easy to ignore. Have a good evening, won't you? Skopp (Talk) 03:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is a certain irony in YOU accusing OTHERS of being "foot soldiers for their political parties", though I have to say that you seem to be an equal-opportunity personal attack artist. I have no agenda at Wikipedia other than making articles better. Seeing editors like you personally attack everyone who questions your edits, and insult and patronize me like you have in your last post simply makes it even easier to support any complaint lodged against you as a result of your behavior. I find your actual boorishness very easy to deplore.K. Scott Bailey 04:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There, you've made 4 posts now, all of which have as their intent the inflammation of an issue that's already been resolved. Nice start, newbie editor. You're just what WP needs. Pshaw! Skopp (Talk)

You can choose to lie about the intent of my posts all you want. My intent to support any complaint Crockspot (or the others you've chosen to personally attack in this discussion) choose to lodge against you stands. And for the record, Crockspot was READY to let it go when you went on the attack again. I hardly call that "an issue that's already been resolved."K. Scott Bailey 04:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry Bailey, it's evident to anyone who reads Skopp's sour, inflamatory comments that he is no more than a bitter editor that thrives on being disliked. There's no use reasoning with him or even responding to these comments because all it brings is more of the same. You'll see -- just watch the response that this comment gets! ;) Giles22 14:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I was just about to tell you how I approve of your last edit, and how I was on my way to retract the complaint I just filed on you, but here you are attacking me again. Stop referring to me as Crackpot. (BTW, I still do not have a problem with your last edit, because it is neutral, and well sourced. What I DO have a problem with is your behavior.) - Crockspot 17:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I beg pardon, but Crackpot is how I was parsing your username, reading quickly. Isn't "crockspot" a sardonic play on that word anyway? Skopp (Talk) 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• And my user page is not even close to how you charactarize it. Stop with the attacks, stop with the lies. I only ask for sources. You have finally provided them, and a neutral wording. The issue is done, so stop digging your grave further with deceit and attacks. - Crockspot 17:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should re-read your user page. "As a conservative, it is true that I am more likely to proactively seek out poorly sourced negative information about conservatives." It's clear you joined WP with an agenda, unlike me. Skopp (Talk) 17:18, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

We must not be reading the same page. I'm just being honest in disclosing that I'm a conservative, but that it does not affect my judgement when it comes to obvious bias of any kind. If you think that you don't have an agenda, then you're deluded. Now, please, again, stop calling me Crackpot. I'm freaking agreeing with your last version of the statement in the article. What more do you want? Instead of attacking me further, you should be poring over this page and retracting all the unfounded attacks you have made against me and others, and apologizing to me for misusing my name. If that were to happen, I would still be inclined to withdraw my compliaint. But if you are going to continue to reinforce the complaints I have already made, then my complaint will stand. - Crockspot 17:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you should re-read this exchange. You've personally attacked ANYONE who dared question your edits. You've continually called Crockspot "Crackpot", which is certainly not simply an honest mistake, even assuming good faith. You've done it continually throughout this discussion, regardless of the fact that his ACTUAL username has been posted at the end of every post he's made. As someone who is probably closer to you politically than to Crockspot, I still feel your behavior has been reprehensible. As such, if Crockspot needs support in his complaint against you, I will certainly provide it.K. Scott Bailey 17:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

RKevins, I do not have to cite that MD is criticised for his attitudes on GW. That's a given, the blogosphere is alive with condemnation. Do a search. But I'll find other sources if you get anal about it. Some of the citations you deleted are from the WP IPCC article itself, so that shows how absurd your reversion was. Non-negotiated edits borne of animosity are degrading the WP, so please, discuss here before making wholesale changes to text everyone else is happy with. Skopp (Talk) 19:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Criticism removed because "Sean Prophet" is not a notable source and the American Chronicle is a joke (except for AP stories it carries, which does not include your link). You can surely find a story criticizing Drudge for his stance on global warming, though I think you may be giving undue weight to a relatively minor aspect of his biography. Also, we should be careful to satisfy BLP's criteria regarding sources. I will look through Lexis, since Google News is not producing much. Blog sources are not likely lnotable. I (along with everyone else) should remove improperly sourced material for living people, Skopp. That is why it was removed without discussion, per guidelines. Rkevins 19:22, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, your edit summary, that I removed "consensus text" is absurd. If this discussion appears to reach a consensus, it is against your revisions. I also searched Lexis-Nexis for sources from reliable, notable sources criticizing Drudge for his stance on global warming.

• Searching in "general news"/"magazines and journals", FULL TEXT for "Matt Drudge" AND "global warming" over "all available dates" yielded seven hits. None criticized him (they usually weren't even related).
• Searching in "general news"/"major newspapers", FULL TEXT for "Matt Drudge" AND "global warming" over "all available dates" yielded seventeen hits. None criticized him (they usually weren't even related).

I don't see how we can include it. Rkevins 19:55, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• LOL, way to go, my conservative friends! Take a topic of which almost everyone is aware (like MD's pathetic and dangerous attempt to "debunk" global warming, the biggest threat to mankind) and for which thousands of negative blog comments can be found, say that blogs are unacceptable sources (even if one can cite a very large number on the topic), then run to Lexis-Nexis (which only carries text written by people who consider MD far too lowly to warrant critical comment anyway), and use that as justification to pull a valid comment that puts your boy in a bad light (yes, "your boy" -- just for referenence: RKevins is the sort of guy who thinks the impeached crook and liar Nixon was "underappreciated" -- see his user page). I don't know, they say WP is getting totally borked by this kind of dreadful editorial warring, and I'm starting to agree. I fear WP is under dire threat, so much dishonest (e.g. the story about the WP senior editor who lied about his credentials), editors who are card-carrying members of certain parties (I care for none of them) and will fight tirelessly to sanitize even the shadow of a critical comment from a biography, always shouting "BLP, BLP!!" as their cover, and so on. Stinks. Skopp (Talk) 20:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter one whit what you think "stinks", it's what can be accurately sourced. And contrary to your apparent belief, blogs are not "reliable sources", no matter how many make a claim. While I don't doubt that MD actually believes that the threat Global Warming is overblown--it's not an uncommon stance to take--unless you can find something other than blogs to support it, it doesn't belong in this article. Additionally, it's quite ironic how you accuse others of what is apparent in your OWN post above. Use of the phrase "your boy", personally attacking RKevins, calling other editors "card-carrying members of certain parties", and on and on frame you as something far less than a neutral observer. Your point regarding "critical comment" is poorly made as well, since Wikipedia articles are not the place for people to make "comments" of any type, whether critical or otherwise. Wikipedia articles are to be encyclopedic in nature. If you want to start a competing portal meant to critically examine the life and careers of public figures you dislike, that's your right. It has no place on Wikipedia, no matter how much you think that "stinks."K. Scott Bailey 20:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

"Accurately sourced" - mp3s of Drudge's own broadcasts are considered inadequate, published comments on non-blog sites are considered inadequate (that site's a "joke" dude!), etc. Where there's a will to exclude information form WP, there's a way. As for "critical comment", I was simply stating that others are critical of his stance, which is completely encyclopaedic, falling as it does under a section called Criticisms. Hilarious. Have fun writing your version of reality. I've stopped caring, because this has all the hallmarks of a madhouse. Skopp (Talk) 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Also contrary to your biased, anti-Drudge views, the MSM doesn't consider Drudge "far too lowly to warrant critical comment." See the following link for proof. ABC has an article on MD's influence, and how he quite possibly moved the stock market during the big pullback on Tuesday. Here's the link:

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/IndustryInfo/story?id=2915370&page=1

So, whatever you think of Drudge, he's not flying below the mainstream media's radar anymore. That portion of your argument was completely specious.K. Scott Bailey 21:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone who thinks Drudge was behind the stock market plunge hardly deserves comment. But well done on digging up this one story. No, he's not below the radar, but with news sites like http://digg.com around, he's become old hat. And as someone who struggled to get through senior school, his views on scientific issues are treated with the scorn they deserve by top journos. Obviously. Skopp (Talk) 21:37, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Wow, for someone who thinks Drudge is an "old hat," you CERTAINLY spend a lot of time on wikipedia OBSESSING over the details of his life and his views. Giles22 23:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I've just picked a few topics almost at random to edit, and this was one. I actually find the subject to be a bore. Skopp (Talk) 23:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• Skop, the people here didn't just make up the rules about the use of blogs as sources just to screw you on this article. It is, and has been policy at WP for some time. If you ever bothered to read WP:RS and WP:BLP, you would realize that. Personally, I have never been a registered Republican. I was a registered Democrat for about ten years, and then a registered Green for about ten years. I voted for Jimmy Carter over Reagan, and for Clinton both times. I also voted for Bush 43 both times, but not for his father. I now live in a state that does not have party declaration, so I do not belong to any party. (Though, as my user page states, I do edit Wikipedia on behalf of a secret agency, and the pay is pretty good.) But seriously, I am a reasonable guy, and can often be convinced to change my opinion about a particular edit. You should be able to see that, since I came around to accepting your edit recently, once you finally brought it into compliance with the standards of WP:RS and WP:NPOV. (Sadly, I do not own this article, and another editor has seen fit to remove it. That's unfortunate, but that's how it works at Wikipedia.) However, my open mind begins to close rapidly when the person trying to convince me constantly calls me "Crackpot", and is uncivil and accusatory to me and other editors. No one is completely without bias, you included. But most of us are smart enough and reasonable enough to understand that not everyone is going to agree with us. That is why there are guidelines for us to fall back on. I work pretty well with a couple of editors that I am completely the political opposite of, User:BenBurch and User:Gamaliel for a couple of examples. We have had drawn out fights in the past, but we have come to have respect, and even a bit of fondness, for each other, even though we disagree on a great deal. We are not your enemy here, and you are not a victim. We all should be focusing on the content itself, its merits, and relevance, and compliance with policy, and not on personality issues. Is it possible for you to do this? Your user page contains some problematic wording. I don't have a problem with you tracking edits of yours that have been reverted. But I do have a problem with how you characterize the editors who reverted them. Even though you do not name anyone specifically, it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure out that it is a personal attack against me and others on this article. Under policy, I would be within my rights to go and edit that out of your user page. I'm not going to do that, because I have faith that you will see the light, and remove the offending comments yourself. - Crockspot 21:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why would you edit my user page when I'm not even referring to you in this instance? Looks like you're still sporting that full bladder, compadre. Skopp (Talk) 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Not the reply I was hoping for. An attack aganst any editor is against the rules. It's only your opinion that those unnamed editors were politically motivated. Your user page is not owned by you. Your speculative opinion which besmirches other editors has no place there. Please change it. Crockspot 21:50, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Skopp, we don't have WP:BLP as an official policy just for shits and giggles, and I think it would do you a world of good to review that policy as well as WP:ATT in regards to what constitutes reliable sources, blogs, even if there are hundreds of them, just do not satisfy these criterion. BLP helps to prevent Wikipedia from being subject to lawsuits in regards to libelous statements made, and Jimmy Wales has said in the past that "no" information is better than "speculative" information. I hope you enjoy editing Wikipedia, but in order to be a good contributor, you need to keep these policies in mind.--RWR8189 21:47, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I am well aware of that policy, dictated by lawyers, and I did not cite a blog in my edit. Skopp (Talk) 21:53, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

• So, after RWR8189 asked for my user page to be protected from me(!) on the basis of WP:BLP, he was denied by an administrator. It appears there are some sane people left at WP. Hooray for that. Question to the other editors here: with that decision in hand, would any of you mind if I re-inserted the edit? (See it on my user page please, click my name). Skopp (Talk) 02:54, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Now that I've been attacked by Skopp (and responded to his baseless attack here), I would like to return this discussion to the basic issues:

1) Is the paragraph based on a proper source? The minimal bar for a source to be reliable is: "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand."

• I would argue that "Sean Prophet" and the "American Chronicle" are not reliable sources. It is the policy of Wikipedia that, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material." In this case, Skopp must support his paragraph with a citation and the source must be reliable.

2) Since Drudge is a living person, the policy goes further: "Editors must take particular care when writing biographical material about living persons, for legal reasons and in order to be fair. Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material immediately if it's about a living person, and do not move it to the talk page. This applies to any material related to living persons in any article, talk, user page, or project page."

• This material is obviously contentious to a number of editors, so it should be cut, without first getting consensus, anywhere it appears, including the talk page, article, and Skopp's user page. An admin has found otherwise, but that does not mean it is the final word, just a finding in that situation without a full discussion.

3) Finally, are we giving undue weight to the opinions of a few people? The policy states, in closing, "If you are able to prove something that no one or few currently believe, Wikipedia is not the place to premiere such a proof."

• I tried to find a citation in Lexis-Nexis, in order to improve the article. I found nothing searching major papers (52 of the largest English-language papers in the world) and magazines (509 English-language, including trade publications). If Drudge is not being criticized for his position on global warming there, I would question if we are giving too much weight to a small minority.

I welcome thoughts. Rkevins 04:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• My thought is that your comments are superseded by the current very neutral edit, from which Sean Prophet has been removed. Skopp (Talk) 17:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After absorbing some more comments of other editors, here's my take on it: Is there anyone notable who has even commented on Drudge's "global warming stance", let alone criticized it? I mean outside of bloggers? Is there an editorial in a newspaper taking him to task? A TV talking head? Anyone? Beuller? If not, what makes this notable enough to mention in an encyclopedia? It could be argued (and pretty successfully) that this inclusion is original research, particularly since the source for the comments is a primary source, not a secondary. If there was a NYTimes editorial pointing out Drudge's stance, and characterizing it as outside the general consensus, then it would be a different story. But I think presenting a primary source, and justaposing it with a UN report veers into original research pretty clearly (at least to me). The purpose of WP is to report what other reliable sources have already reported, not to synthesize or create concepts, or report less-than-reliable commentary or concepts. - Crockspot 18:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
    • And here's my take: global warming is a very notable topic, and MD is a very notable person. The current insert simply reports what he said on this notable topic, and identifies further the fact that it contrasts with what the IPCC says. It takes no position in either case. There's no "original research" there. It simply reports what he said, and how it compares to what the IPCC said. How is that "original research"? The insert I crafted takes no position on whether Drudge is right or wrong, but rather simply reports what the IPCC's position is on the same issue. Why are you so dead set against having MD's position on GW (a notable topic if ever there was one) put into this article? I don't understand what the problem with it is, I guess.K. Scott Bailey 18:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
      • If I was "dead set against" it, I would have already removed it. The topic of GW is a notable topic, I'm just not sure that how Drudge feels about that topic is notable enough for a mention, considering that no notable reliable sources have commented about his stance on the topic. (Why is it important how he feels about GW?) Basing a contribution on a primary source, and comparing it to a UN report just feels like OR to me. The subject of this article is Matt Drudge, not global warming. Some people may think it is important how Drudge feels about the subject, but without any secondary sources documenting any of those opinions, we must assume that those who feel that way are in a minority, and "undue weight" is being given to its importance. I do think the NPOV issues have been resolved. There's still room for discussion on the relevance/importance/undue weight/OR aspects though. - Crockspot 18:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

To crockspot: when WP:BLP fails, move on to WP:OR. I get it.

"If there was a NYTimes editorial pointing out Drudge's stance" - are you kidding? I think you vastly overestimate Drudge's profile in the media nowadays. Drudge is no longer the subject of editorials in any major newspaper. He had his 15 minutes of fame a few years ago, when he was the phenom of the day. The world has moved on. The chances of getting a major source for criticism of Drudge on this issue are going to become increasingly small. And the current edit does not even mention his critics, simply noting that he is taking a maverick stance on the issue of climate change and global warming by calling it "false science". That is simply NOT a mainstream position, and is thus very notable, especially since he features something to do with GW almost every day, and in most of his radio broadcasts. And he's been doing it for years. Even though MD is ignored by serious journalists these days, the people who do comment on Drudge are very alert to this:

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/17/drudge-global-warming/

http://blog.foreignpolicy.com/node/3618

http://digg.com/political_opinion/Matt_Drudge_s_Efforts_To_Cast_Doubt_On_Global_Warming_Reaches_New_Low_2

-

and thousands more where those came from .... Skopp (Talk) 18:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Your first line appears to be a lack of assumption of good faith on my part. You should strike that comment. I have made this exact same argument many times, on other subjects and topics. It really doesn't matter who the subject, and what the topic is. The argument is the same. We report reliable source reports, we don't manufacture our own when we can't find those reports. And I believe your take on Drudge's popularity/importance may be a little bit wishful thinking. An ABC reporter wrote yesterday (in an article about Drudge's current influence on society) that the DR is his home page, and has been for five years. Hillary Clinton's press secretary also uses the DR as her home page. He's also been named "most influential", etc. in the past year. And when he does screw up, there are reliable editorials that hammer him for it. (See the Kerry "affair" dustup from the 2004 election.) There is also a lot of opinion out in the blogosphere that is not considered notable or reliable by WP standards. Trust me, this rule has hamstrung me in the past just as much as it is hamstringing you now. I have just learned to live with it. There is plenty of blog material I would love to be able to use as a source. I just can't. That's wiki life. Anyway, as I said, there is room for discussion, and I am not going to remove the passage without consensus. (Too many edit conflicts trying to comment here, I'm out for a while.) - Crockspot 18:45, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• • • • • Two things: first, Drudge's profile is still quite high, Skopp. See Halperin and others regarding how influential his page is. Second, this has nothing to do with whether his position on GW belongs in this article. He's a political commentator, and GW is one of the biggest issues of the day. To not include his position (from recordings of his show that are widely available) would be rather ludicrous. Including the IPCC link is simply showing that this IS a rather controversial position to take, since the section it's found is is about "Persona and criticism."K. Scott Bailey 18:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
          • You make a good point, which Skopp's contention that he is not influential actually weakens. (If he's not influential, then who cares what he thinks about GW). I would object to charactarizing it as a "controversial position", since the concept of "controversy" generally needs to be sourced as a "controversy" in most cases on WP, as it veers into POV. But that isn't in the article, so it's moot. At this point, I don't feel comfortable with it, but I'm inclined to leave it in its current wording. Crockspot 18:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
• I believe that the paragraph on Drudge's views of global warming should definitely be retained. Some people may wonder, "why is Drudge posting all these links to stories that are critical of the idea of global warming (due to human activity)?" I know I have. For anyone who checks the site regularly, it's hard not to notice how aggressive he's been in covering the story this way. People should be able to come here to find out what Drudge himself has said are his views on the topic. Kyle Cronan 04:26, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Achive request

Can somebody with some time on their hands please archive this talk page. I'm getting carpal tunnel paging up and down. Skopp (Talk) 19:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

• Let's let the discussion settle a little first, especially on the preceeding section, which takes up a third of the page. Crockspot 19:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who knows how to archive knows that active sections can be retained. Skopp (Talk) 19:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. This page/topic has become frustratingly long to navigate through. Giles22 21:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Heading off an edit war with Skopp

WP:Attribution#No original research states that material is original research if (among other things) it is material that:

• introduces an analysis, synthesis, explanation or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments that advances a point that cannot be attributed to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

What that means is, to say that Drudge's opinion goes against the views of the IPCC, you need a reliable source making that observation. WP:BLP states that adding original research to a blp article is a violation. So until a proper source appears, that statement should stay out. - Crockspot 04:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with that is that nobody of any note these days bothers to comment on what MD does or doesn't say or do or think. It's all in the uncitable blogosphere now. I suppose that's the advantage to Drudge of his growing obscurity. Ok, leave it as it stands, although it just hangs there in space now. Why is his sceptical view of GW part of his Persona and Criticism? Can't you improve it, Crock, to show that it's a controversial opinion he's advancing? Skopp (Talk) 07:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding. The rule has been recently clarified a little. Whether or not his GW opinion is notable enough to mention is another question, but I thought that was hashed out above. I'm neutral about that, but I'll take a look at it later, see if it can be better presented. - Crockspot 13:07, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Soledad O'Brien 'controversy'

The Soledad O'Brien thing at the end of the Drudge article seems to have the following problems: Unsourced or Original research not allowed. Not to mention, in any case, it seems ridiculously petty (I think Drudge critics can do better than that; if not, they should hang it up. In comparison, the NY Times entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_york_times does not include a laundry list of their controversies going down to the level of this Soledad one, or it would requires an entire new (looooooong) entry, just to cover the last 10 years).

I am tempted to delete the entire bit, but perhaps someone could fill me in on why my above assertions are incorrect? Thank you,

76.172.186.55 21:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)LAEsquire

Somebody pay attn to proper punctuation, please. Dogru144 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

• It is absurdly petty. Removing. Skopp (Talk) 23:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)