Talk:Matt Drudge/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Salary

I removed the 8 million $ figure since this is an estimate of operating income?? I also fact tagged the 2003 income, anybody know where that came from or if there is a RS for any reliable salary data? If not, probably best just to leave out of top of page info box. --Tom 14:44, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed the tag, his income seems to be covered in its own section, not sure how tight that section is or well sourced/written. Anyways, --Tom 14:46, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: the $8M figure, wasn't that labelled as an estimate? Are we allowed to include sourced estimates? ► RATEL ◄ 23:34, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that was the sites estimated revenue or income, or I forget what, which would be different than that of a salary? Anybody else?? --Tom 00:11, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See also

It looks like these are already covered in the article, maybe two of them need to be linked better in the article if at all. Breibart is already linked above. Tom 22:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Breitbart is given a mention, but since he is the other half of the Drudge business he deserves to be listed in the see alsos, and talk radio is not directly mentioned but formed part of his career. ► RATEL ◄ 22:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop and let others comment. Also see WP:SEEALSO. Thanks, --Tom 22:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Aak! BLP

Hey, what's all this about Drudge being "allegedly" gay? Has he every acknowledged having a romantic or sexual relationship with a man? If so can we source that? If not, unless the allegation is extremely well covered, the fact that the allegation is made is not terribly noteworthy (millions of straight people, and gays who don't want to be identified as such, are "accused" of being gay at some point in life). Further, the substance of the allegation comes from unreliable sources - rumors, innuendo, personal statements by the people involved. If it's an allegation that he considers negative I would put it like any allegation - of a crime, fraud, bad business dealings, etc. - and say we shouldn't repeat this kind of tabloid speculation even if the tabloids do. If he does acknowledge or kind of half deny it (saying he likes "boobs", or that he does not "love" sex with men, seems like a non-denial) then maybe we can just report it without getting into the more complex issue of what makes someone gay or not. We're having the same issue over at Lindsey Lohan - she's been in an open relationship with another woman for months but denies being LGBT. Maybe we should err on the side of having some respect for Drudge's wishes here. Also, I don't think the heading is fair. Why is being gay an "allegation" or accusation rather than just plain sexual orientation? Maybe we should change it to something like "Sexuality". I would make some edits but I don't really know the situation and I don't want to get anyone into a tiff over this. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do not re-raise an issue well discussed and fought out in the archives. The gay allegations are handled in a similar manner on Anderson Cooper without drama. The bottom line is that if people are prepared to say Mr Drudge is gay in their autobiographies, and in newspapers, and in magazines, and if his alleged lover is prepared to hazard a libel lawsuit and confirm his gay relationship (now ended) with Drudge both to a book writer and to a newspaper (as David Cohen did years ago, without ever getting sued or even refuted by Drudge), then it is up to us, as a tertiary source, to report what all these other sources are saying. Remember, WP is not censored and we report items that may not please the subjects of BLPs, if the data is sufficiently sourced. And BTW, none of these sources is "tabloid". Notability: Drudge's alleged gayness is extremely noteworthy given the way Drudge attacked a gay reporter (Kauffman). And we're not getting into the issue of "what makes someone gay or not", we're simply reporting known details published in books, magazines and newspapers. Wikipedia does not have to have "respect for someone's wishes" in a BLP — we are an uncensored tertiary source using reliable secondary sources for data. We have no idea what Mr Drudge's wishes are, anyway. He may be tickled pink that he is able to deny being gay, while at the same time have it generally known that he is gay, sort of like having your cake and eating it too. Don't presume to know his wishes. Mindreading is not your job as an editor. Finally, the section on his alleged homosexuality has been there now for a year or two, and very few comments or arguments have come forward, from anyone except partisan footsoldier-types. And that's not you, is it, Wikidemon? ► RATEL ◄

I'll ignore the personal stuff and red herrings about censorship. Yes, it is a valid topic for discussion today given the attempt to add material to the section,[1] that does not seem to be reliably sourced - Media Matters, a blog used as a primary source, and two gossip columns in the New York Daily News. That of course raises BLP issues because an "accusation" of being gay is, without making presumptions, a disputed matter. The sourcing on his supposedly being gay is one step removed - the people themselves who made the accusations. That was followed by two quick reversions. For now I'll change the heading to be neutral. I asked the questions because there are many sources here, some clearly weak but maybe some good ones in there. Anyone want to take a stab at answering them, namely: What is the nature of his denial? Can we source that the allegations are biographically relevant? The question of what to call him if he admits (or is shown in a non-BLP vio way) to have had relationships with men but denies being gay may or may not come up, based on the answers, but it is a very current, relevant question that comes up all the time across the project. Wikidemon (talk) 01:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll insert two thoughts here for the day:

1. It is not criminal to be gay. It's not like people have said Drudge is a pervert. Homosexuality is a normal sexual variant, not listed as an aberration on Dsm 4. Since the seventh printing of the DSM-II, in 1974, homosexuality was not listed as a category of disorder. It's not even insulting to be called gay (unless you have a shame hangup). So being called gay is not pejorative to Drudge, per se.
2. The existence of these allegations in numerous published sources —and yes, a few are weaker, like gossip columns (My own headline: "Shock! Gossip Columns publish Gay Gossip on famous Cybergossip!")— means this topic cannot ever defensibly be excluded from the wikipedia page. ► RATEL ◄ 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

3) Forgot to add that ever since this material was consensussed into the article, the constant vandalism by driveby anonymous editors, who inserted the same data, usually in a crudely worded phrase or sentence, has stopped. Let's keep it that way. ► RATEL ◄ 02:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain why it's listed in the Criticism section of the article? The accusations are hearsay to put it kindly, but even if he is a homosexual why would that be a criticism? MrDestructo (talk) 22:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Long quotations in some of the references?

Is there a reason that some of the references have very long quotations inside them? I don't see how this helps? TIA, Tom (talk) 04:41, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The citation template allows for quotes directly from the source. It's often wise to use that facility and quote the relevant passage, to stop people arbitrarily removing the material sourced, simply because they are not prepared to go to the source and read it (happens a lot).► RATEL ◄ 05:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Do they have to be so long? The quotes seem to stand out compared to the rest of the citations and give the appearance of undue weight. Anyways, thanks for the response. what do others think about this? Tom (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

External links section

I have removed a link per WP:EL. This seems to be a search results page. I have brought this up before at the EL take page. Maybe we can revisit it there or reach consensus here. That this "issue" has been decided at another article page means what exactly. Anyways, I would appreciate if this link was not readded until there was clear consensus to do so. Thank you, Tom (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

If you are unhappy with a link to a long list of MMatters articles on Drudge, would a link to just one article suffice? ► RATEL ◄ 13:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

E.g. [2] (Gives a good balance to the positive links) ► RATEL ◄ 14:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I personally would rather just remove the "positive links" as you put it, so we don't need to "balance" the section with such a critical commentary piece from a partisan site. If it were to be included, I hope we would label the site as progessive or whatever the preffered term is these days and add the description critical commentary, ect. Again, I would rather just provide a link to the subjects web site and leave links to "commentary" sites out so we avoid the POV introduction. Anyways, what do others think? Thanks, Tom (talk) 15:07, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd agree with Tom on this one, better to leave the decision to the ppl who visit the site. Soxwon (talk) 14:40, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The link I've added contains a highly detailed and comprehensive critique of the subject, way beyond the scope of the wikipedia page, and definitely offers an insightful (if partisan) viewpoint that adds to the understanding of how the subject is perceived. At least one of the links above it is on the opposite end of the spectrum. As an inclusionist, I see no problem with having both links available. ► RATEL ◄ 14:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Criticism Section?

I thought criticism sections went out of style once Obama won the Presidency. I can't find criticism sections on any prominent left-leaning people in the media (Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz). If impartiality is more than a word on Wikipedia, it should be removed from here as well.

And why would his sexual preference be considered a "criticism?" MrDestructo (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

This issue was well argued in the archives, so I suggest you see those. It's in he criticism section because he was criticised for highlighting the homosexuality of a journalist in a negative light, as it clearly states on the page. ► RATEL ◄ 22:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I did read through the archive because it blew me away that anyone could argue for it. The only person who was adamant at keeping a criticism section was Skopp, who seemed to have a personal grudge. He was so determined to paint Drudge as a homosexual that any source would work, no matter how tenuous or hateful. Not very encyclopedic or tasteful.

I have just completed a criticism section on Rachel Maddow's page using the exact same source (Signorile) to highlight his criticisms of her about not properly supporting the gay community on her show. I did my best to make it as fair as possible with his criticism followed by her response. Any guesses on how long it lasts before someone complains about having a criticism section? I'm hoping that you'll come on over to help support it there as well. MrDestructo (talk) 10:23, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd support you removing the word criticism from the header. It's more about Drudge the person anyway. I don't think anyone wants to castigate Drudge as an homosexual (there is nothing wrong with being homosexual), but rather the page is documenting the fact that the allegation has been made in many places and Drudge himself has used other people's gayness against them, which some people have called hypocritical. That's the gist of it. ► RATEL ◄ 12:34, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Per BLP, making such allegations requires strong sources. Collect (talk) 13:01, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

What allegations? Wikipedians have not alleged anything, merely reported widespread allegations in numerous sources, as good wikipedians should do. Even Jimbo Wales got involved in this one, Collect, and did not impugn the sources, so your attempt to start another edit war here will fail.► RATEL ◄ 13:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

(out) Try AGF and have a cup of tea. Collect (talk) 14:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be telling of the rampant partisanship on Wikipedia that within 3 hours of placing a similarly worded and formatted "Criticism" section on Rachel Maddow's page using the EXACT same source, it was completely re-edited to lessen its presence (reduced to a shorter paragraph) and marked with a "criticism" tag. One must ask themselves why this section on Drudge's page is so highly guarded. MrDestructo (talk) 17:41, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Destructo, I think the Maddow criticism you inserted was valid, if overlong. Try again, after first attempting to gain consensus on the Talk page there. Yes, politically sensitive pages are watched over carefully, and so don't expect to waltz into them and make wholesale changes without a long battle on Talk to form consensus. It can be exhausting. ► RATEL ◄ 23:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

For some unexplained reason Ratel has removed my expansion of the introductory paragraphs. Following wp:lead I summarized some of the content in the article. If other editors could have a look and weigh in I would appreciate it. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:01, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you used peacocky terms. He gets a few million uniques, is this popular or influential? We do not make that decision in an encyclopedia. So I removed those phrases, but left the summary material. ► RATEL ◄ 06:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I would just ask other editors to look at the diff and decide which version is better. There is an entire section on Drudge's influence. So saying he is influential seems pretty reasonable and well sourced (based on the sourced content in that section). This is a long article with a very short lead. A few million uniques seems pretty influential to me. Isn't it one of the top websites of its kind? ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:30, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I notice that HuffPo (much more influential than Drudge w/ >8 M uniques) has some peacock words in the lede. It's not right there either, but I suppose I can't argue against using such terms here if that's how they describe HuffPo... But then again, look at Arianna Huffington, which is the page we should be comparing. No peacock lede terms. ► RATEL ◄ 02:12, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect Ratel, and I appreciate your consideration, but the Huffington lead includes statements that "In 2009, Huffington was named as number 12 in Forbes' first ever list of the Most Influential Women In Media.[2] She has also moved up to number 42 in the Guardian's Top 100 in Media List.[3]" I think these mentions are bit specific for the lead, so I'm just trying to include a more general reflection of the article content. And I think calling him the operator of an influential website is a pretty fair, accurate, and encyclopedic description of his notability. I know everyone goes ape-shit over the word controversial, but something about the site being and Drudge being seen as a partisan would be okay with me. And if you'd rather include something about 3,000,000 views instead of saying its a popular website that's fine with me too. Maybe popular is too abstract? I think it's fair and I don't think a number is more helpful in a lead where there's nothing to compare it to, but clearly it's a very successful business with a large audience. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:04, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

This is easy to resolve. Simply cite any terms that may be seen as peacock. For best effect, get a good source, real RS, major newspaper or well known commentator. No-one should object to that. Unless equally well-sourced quotes exist claiming the opposite ... not aware of any off the top of my head (that claim Drudge is not influential, although I have seen some blogs and a lot of partisan sites like mediamatters, etc, that say he is fading) ► RATEL ◄ 11:24, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. To be clear, I am not simply making these descriptors up, but basing them on the cited content already in the article (like the sections titled "influence"). Information in opening paragraphs isn't usually cited since it's meant to be general and to consist of material already covered in the artilce, but I'm willing to include cites if you think that's necessary. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:18, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead, just use the name of the citation lower down, eg if it is called <ref name="abc"> then add "<ref name="abc" />" just like that, next to the word "influential". As for the word popular, rather say he has 2-3 million readers, and use a cite from the Drudge Report page (you'll need to copy it across in full.) This will not only satisfy me, but all the other editors who may otherwise revert you. ► RATEL ◄ 23:36, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Campaign of smears and BLP violations

The section titled Gay allegations is not just about those, but also about other issues. It needs a neutral heading. Also, this edit moved Drudge's response from its appropriate context http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matt_Drudge&diff=prev&oldid=306504750 There already seems to be way too much weight given to these allegations (including reiterating a statement that was retracted by the paper that made it) but at the very least, Drudge's response to the allegations should be included. This article is full of poorly sourced BLP allegations based most on a hit piece. I'm not opposed to mentioning the allegations, but this is an encyclopedia, so having a large section of innuendo and smears seems grossly inappropriate. I'm not sure why some Wikipedia editors are so interested in trying to out someone against their will, if in fact Drudge is gay, but it seems pretty despicable and shameful. We're not running a tabloid. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

You're flogging a dead horse. We went round and round and round on this several times; even Jimbo Wales had a look. Spend some time in the archives please. ► RATEL ◄ 06:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

An article is not stagnant and doesn't become set in stone. Time has a way of changing things. If COM wants to review and bring more in line with BLP then that's their perogative. --PTR (talk) 19:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Reorder

I reordered this article so that like text was with like text, e.g. career with career and personal life with personal life, so that it made more sense, and rem the BLP concern of the header saying it was criticism, since the statements were supported by WP:RS citations. I notice it was nearly immediately reverted by someone, with the edit summary that it was unnecessary. I have re-reverted, challenging that the edit summary of unnecessary is simply a repackaged I don't like it. Please state why the changes are unnecessary before reverting them again, because I believe they make sense for the reasons stated here. Furthermore, he is more well known for his career than for his personal life. --125.236.223.156 (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not how it's done. This is a long-standing, heavily edited article that you should seek consensus on for big changes especially. Putting his Early life at the end, and the gay aspects at the very end, is obvious POV editing aimed at a whitewash. ► RATEL ◄ 03:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, AGF without jumping to conclusions about other editors just because you don't like something, and I'd strongly suggest dropping WP:OWN. Secondly, it's not a whitewash, because nothing was removed except a badly formed header that doesn't fit with BLP. The gay allegations are well supported by WP:RS, so they remained. However, their weight in his personal life are secondary to his popularity with the DR. And for the record, the gay allegation section is only two small paragraphs lower in the article in the revised version than the one you prefer (approximately line 70, rather than line 64). The changes are needed as the article had no flow, skipping between career and personal life with no clear distinction, and needed an overhaul. Heavy-handed comments like unneccessary, and reverting everyone's changes to your preferred version is not consensus. If others come along and want reasonable changes, shouting consensus is just not an acceptable argument. Consensus is fluid, not stagnant. --125.236.223.156 (talk) 09:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not order it the way it currently is, so there are no OWN issues, but your reordering of a BIOGRAPHY page so that his life starts near the end of the page is not something I have seen elsewhere. Care to provide an example or three? ► RATEL ◄ 09:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You are, however, violating 3RR in order to preserve your preferred version, without addressing why your version is better or change is 'unnecessary'. The arrogance that your version is the correct one is amazing, as is your assumption that moving things around somehow violates POV. Address the points I made previously, please. --125.236.223.156 (talk) 09:54, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

When did I violate 3RR? I've reverted you twice on this day. I'll leave it to other editors to sort this out. You have mangled the page to bury the subject's least attractive attributes as far into the text as you can. I doubt it'll stand for long. ► RATEL ◄ 10:09, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You've reverted three times, not twice, in a 24 hour period.

1. (cur) (prev) 09:29, 15 August 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (34,993 bytes) (Reverted to revision 308065652 by Ratel; You are starting an edit war based on your near-vandalism of the article. STOP. (TW)) (undo)
2. (cur) (prev) 03:48, 15 August 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (34,993 bytes) (Reverted to revision 307978047 by Ratel; Restore to version that had a degree of consensus. Please do not start moving his early life to the end of the article or moving "conservative" around again. (TW)) (undo)
3. (cur) (prev) 18:02, 14 August 2009 Ratel (talk | contribs) (34,993 bytes) (Reverted to revision 307783493 by Esrever; rvt unnecessary fiddling. (TW)) (undo)

You have also failed to address the points above. The least attractive? That sounds mildly homophobic. If anything, the allegation is easier to see in context of his personal life, rather than buried in the middle of career-related points. I think the problem here is you are stuck on a malformed assumption, and are reacting improperly accordingly. I've spent far too much time now, arguing over an article I edited when it came up as a random article, but it's the first I've seen such heavy-handed and irrational opposition. --125.236.223.156 (talk) 10:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

"Mildly homophobic"? The homophobes are the ones who want to hide the section on Matt's closeted existence, not me. I'm talking about the people who edit the article to put that section last. You know, like you. ► RATEL ◄ 13:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, mildly homophobic, to insist on allowing a header that refers to being gay, or possibly gay, as a criticism. Again, it wasn't buried at the bottom. It was moved down 6 lines due to a misplaced section about his professional life, and placed in such a way as it was easier to read and comprehend, part of personal life, not buried at the bottom in the middle of unrelated professional portions, as in your preferred version. Any suggestion of hiding the section can only be seen as your projection against reality, since reverting to your preferred version actually hides the section quite effectively, while my edits made it clear the allegations are part of his personal life and remove all hint of it being a persona (i.e., false face to the public) or a criticism, as if being gay was something for which he should be criticised, and therefore a shame. Seeing your participation on each and every section of this talk page leads me to the conclusion that you must have some vested interest, or COI. Perhaps you should reconsider that you are not the final word on how this article is fashioned, nor am I, but at least I'm looking to add improvement, rather than burying something you think is the "least attractive attribute", as if you, as an editor have the right to make that determination. We are to report, not judge, criticise, or condemn. --125.236.223.156 (talk) 04:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

A sharper wit would immediately understand that the "criticism" of Drudge in the context of sexual orientation has nothing to do with being gay, but with the alleged hypocrisy of labelling others gay in a pejorative sense, which is what Drudge did to Kaufman. But I can see this subtle point eludes you, so I'll let the issue drop. ► RATEL ◄ 04:48, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Whatever helps you sleep at night, luv. --125.236.223.156 (talk) 06:57, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of a link to a page at mediamatters.org

In this edit, John Asfukzenski deleted

'08 SHOCK: Drudge still smearing, distorting quotes, and touting fake allegations Liberals' view of Matt Drudge

from the list of external links, with the comment External links: MMfa does not meet WP:EL.

Perhaps it doesn't. (Mediamatters.org is a site that keeps tabs on the right wing of the US mass media.) But then again neither does Drudge. Oh, Drudge's site merits linking in this article, yes; but not elsewhere. However, in the context of partisan political bloggery, Media Matters might make it. I'd say that the link should stay, because it's to a page that is long, detailed, informative, and sourced. However, I leave this matter for thoughtful discussion among the well-informed denizens of this talk page. -- Hoary (talk) 03:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

You are too kind, Hoary. That link's been there a long time to balance the countervailing links. I've put it back. ► RATEL ◄ 07:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted it as a clear BLP violation from an unreliable and biased source. Drudge is cited in this article because that's what the article is about. There's no need for shaky and biased sources of that kind in this article. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:04, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Not a BLP violation. The page states nothing about Drudge personally but merely analyses his headlines and the way he reports news, in a negative light. It does say that he smears people, but there are many RSes that say the same, eg:

"Yet the entertainment media treated the Drudge smear like raw meat." LA Times, The Big Picture, (Mar 26, 2002)

"Consider the cockamamie ideas that have been hatched on Matt Drudge's smear site." Toronto Star (Oct 17, 2004) etc

So no BLP issues I can see. ► RATEL ◄ 00:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome to proceed with an RfC or to post it in neutral terms on the article content noticeboard to get wider input, but so far two editors have objected to it and explained why, Hoary indicated he's not sure about it, and you want it included. So it's not appropriate to reintroduce it at this point in time without a change in the consensus. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

On the allegation of a BLP issue, I have to agree with Ratel, who I think doesn't go far enough: the page also shows (or purports to show) how often Drudge is plain wrong. A detailed description of the mistakes made by somebody widely cited for his reports on political news is a matter of public interest. -- Hoary (talk) 00:46, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's not already covered, and based on my recollection I thought those issues were well covered, all it needs a reliable independent source. Media Matters is not appropriate for the body or as an external link, and I respectfully disagree with you on the BLP issue. Partisan hackery sites aren't useful for an encyclopedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:00, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that Media Matters is not an appropriate site to link in a BLP. --RL0919 (talk) 02:10, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Media matters is not an appropriate external link at the end of the page. We should not link to such critical pages in external links, as it's an NPOV violation. Its use as a source for the text is another matter (depending on how it's used). A couple of the other links are also not good, according to WP:ELYES. We shouldn't be striving for balance in external links - no external link should go one way or the other. External links are for homepages, access to a subject's work, or for organised data (bibliographies filmographies etc.) that might otherwise clutter an article. They are not for opinion pieces or analyses. I have removed the links.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 03:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing the critical link is fine if the hagiographic links are also removed, which you have done. ► RATEL ◄ 05:29, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources removed from external links section

These sources were removed from the external link section in case any of them are worth integrating into the article (I haven't looked at them)

• Notable Names Database Profile
• Anyone With A Modem Can Report On The World Transcript of Matt Drudge's 1998 Address Before the National Press Club
• Linking news sites, Matt Drudge creates an Internet success, by Richard Pachter, The Miami Herald, September 1, 2003 ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:25, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

And this one, of course:

• '08 SHOCK: Drudge still smearing, distorting quotes, and touting fake allegations VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I purposefully left that one out because I thought the consensus was pretty clear above that it is not appropriate to include that link in the article. I wasn't trying to do any sleight of hand. :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:40, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't mean to imply that you were - I was just putting all the links in one place. I don't think a consensus has really formed either way about the use of that media matters article as a source, just that it clearly shouldn't be an external link.

Seymour anecdote

Ratel wants this stuff in - others want it out. Let's establish consensus on this. For me, I think it doesn't add anything to an encyclopaedia article about Drudge, and think it is given undue weight. So it shouldn't go in.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

As one of the people who removed it, my perspective is this: As a part of the section on "Gay allegations", it lacks relevance, because the story is about Seymour's sexuality, not Drudge's. All it really shows about Drudge is that he was friends with a gay guy, and by Seymour's own account he wasn't making a claim about Drudge's sexuality. If it were in a completely different section, it would immediately be recognized as an insignificant anecdote that doesn't warrant inclusion in an encyclopedia article. Where it is, it can be taken as innuendo, but that's exactly the sort of thing we shouldn't be putting in articles. --RL0919 (talk) 03:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I can see how it could be viewed, as phrased, as out of context. Now I propose a rephrase to make it contextual. Seymour's anecdote about Drudge (ie that he encouraged male-male kissing, recognized CS's gayness before he himself did, and had an obsession with Chaka Khan, a gay icon band) was used by some sources (eg Signorile, NYPress, Gawker) to imply that Drudge is definitely gay. CS then denied that he was outing Drudge in his own blog (which is RS for his own views). This is completely in place in the section. So how do the other editors feel about a rephrase that puts it better in context? ► RATEL ◄ 03:37, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how the use of a story as innuendo by blogs makes it good to put in a BLP article. (Also, the NYPress piece doesn't mention the kissing story.) --RL0919 (talk) 04:01, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

There's already a whole section about the gay allegations. I don't see what adding more does apart from give WP:UNDUE weight to the matter of his sexuality, and WP:UNDUE weight to this anecdote. It's not as if it was a defining moment in his career.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed edit

After celebrity interviewer and former gay stripper Craig Seymour discussed his close friendship with Drudge in his autobiographical book All I Could Bare: My Life in the Strip Clubs of Gay Washington, D.C, Signorile and other sources used his anecdotes about Drudge to claim Drudge had been outed by Seymour. However, Seymour denied trying to "out" Drudge in his book.

The two cited blogs (Signorile and Gawker), aside from being very dubious sources for a BLP, do not say anywhere that Drudge was outed by Seymour. --RL0919 (talk) 04:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

True, but it's implied. It's also possible to use some of the other anecdotes from the book elsewhere on the page, now I come to think of it. ► RATEL ◄ 04:51, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll be honest, and say that I don't think it's appropriate. What you have are a few blogs trying to insinuate something from a text that the author himself (on another blog) denies is there, and that the BLP subject denies (and a NY Press article that does not say anything beyond reporting some of CS' comments). The gay allegations section as it stands is rather weaselly in any case. I really don't see why giving weight to blogs improves the article.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Populist and Libertarian?

The article refers to Drudge as a populist and a libertarian. Is that possible? At least according to the Nolan Chart it isn't. --Matthew Bauer (talk) 02:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand Drudge has used both terms for himself. While Dave Nolan's chart is interesting, it does not claim anyone must be so absolutely consistent in their positions that they must occupy a specific "dot" on the chart. Collect (talk) 10:18, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

where an adjective is used eight times in one article - has it been overused?

"Conservative" now appears eight times in this article. I woulda thunk anyoine reading an article where a word is used that many times would think the article needs trimming <g>. I found, by the way, no other BLP where such adjective overkill occurs. Collect (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I returned one instance of the word "conservative" to the section describing the Drudge Report. That section had zero iterations of the word, and the main Wikipedia article on the same topic appears to indicate the description is not only accurate, but apparently a defining characteristic. I can't comment on the other seven appearances of the word. Xenophrenic (talk) 00:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Homosexuality/homophobia allegations

Were removed in June 2010 - and stayed out until an editor asserted that consensus was to have them in the article. They were removed on the direct requirement of WP:BLP Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Collect removed them in June 2010, without any Talk Page discussion. He used the hoary, catch-all "BLP Violation" ruse in his edit summary, and then continued to revert anyone who restored the well-sourced section which, these talk page archives will show, was agreed upon by consensus to include.

A look at Collect's history shows many warnings and blocks for revert wars on politically-themed pages. It looks like he's engaging in a slow revert war here. I'd like a disinterested admin to step in, considering the edit history of this particular user. Cheers. --BozellHammer (talk) 01:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Eh? You suddenly appear - make a huge change to a stable article, and then attack me personally? And as a brand new user you assert knowledge of my edit history? Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(addressing BozellHammer) Be that as it may, what's the rationale for adding the material? That's not a rhetorical question, but a request for discussion. I don't remember if I participated in this last year. But I agree with Collect, whatever happened back then the article has been stable for a long while, and adding this much content on a contentious subject is a bold proposal that needs to be hashed out if there's a viable objection. Let's avoid getting personal here, okay? If anyone's a snoot muffin or whatever, there are other pages to deal with that. - Wikidemon (talk) 16:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

There was never consensus to remove the section, merely a slow revert war conducted by Collect. That's hardly "stable." One of the rationales for keeping the material, which was agreed upon by consensus, is that while Drudge has a history of homophobic attacks on persons he disagrees with, several people are on the record, in reliable sources, revealing first-hand knowledge of Drudge's homosexuality. Drudge's homophobia hypocrisy has been written about in several reliably sourced articles, and that's why many editors reached consensus to place it in the article. Drudge's homosexuality is not included to be damning, or salacious, but reflects that several reliable sources find Drudge's hypocrisy newsworthy.

This article was not "stable." It's not uncommon in Wikipedia for several months to pass before a huge deletion comes to light. A major section was deleted without consensus or discussion -- by an editor with a long history of being blocked and warned for revert wars on politically themed articles -- and now the section has been, quite correctly, restored. --BozellHammer (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Note that the deletion was backed by others and stood for almost a year. You appear out of the blue, making inapt assertions and doing your best to edit war. And note also that my list of watchlisted articles is at User:Collect/watchlisted articles with the express purpose of making accusations about me be shown for what they are. Meanwhile, Ratel remains indeffed for his socking, so he can't appear here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 22:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

(unindent and edit conflict...) Would you mind linking to that discussion? Personally, I'm not particularly interested in the history or who's edit warred when. Assuming it's verifiable that he routinely attacks gays, and that he himself is (or is said to be?) gay himself... there are several more steps. First, this has to be sourced to reliable neutral secondary sources. Not examples of his attacking gays but an authoritative source saying that he attacks gays. Not an example of someone saying he is gay, but a site mentioning that others say he is gay. And finally, Wikipedia cannot opine that he is hypocritical, or try to make it seem that way, but could only cover that some have opined that he is hypocritical. However, negative opinions about people aren't terribly encyclopedic and do raise BLP concerns. Even where we do have sources there is a potential problem. I assume he hasn't self-identified as gay and perhaps he's denied it. I know OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a great argument, but how do we handle that elsewhere? Cases like Tom Cruise and others about whom gay rumors circulate, true or otherwise. And finally there is a WP:WEIGHT concern. That's an awful lot of verbiage for what seems like at best a secondary issue, not directly related to his notability. How important and relevant is this matter to Drudge's biography and life's work? How significant are the claims he is gay, and the criticism as hypocrisy? A gay person engaging in gay bashing isn't necessarily hypocrisy. Maybe there's a word for it, but it's a distinct phenomenon. Please forgive me for not looking at the material in detail, just trying to get some thoughts out. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

• note - There is also a thread opened at the BLPN here. Off2riorob (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I was also wondering, is there consensus here to include all these gay allegations? The desired addition seems totally uundue to me, even if it warrants a mention, the disputed addition is twenty five percent of the whole BLP content, is a quarter of his notability speculation about his sexual preferences? Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

'No Many BLP discussions have been held on such, and, almost every time, the reaction is that such allegations must be absolutely strongly sourced, and if they are sourced, they must still be directly shown to be relevant to the BLP. See the discussions on Categories about sexuality as well. WP is not a tabloid, and is not here to promote contentious claims about any living person. Additonally, it appears OTRS editors have the same opinion about including such stuff in any BLP. Note further that my position on such applies to every BLP I have edited. Collect (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

I just want to re-iterate something Off2riorob's said. This material, if retained (which is a very big if), must be shortened very substantially such that it is not undue weight. I know this is original research but I visit the Drudge Report every day and can never recall anything remotely homophobic. –CWenger (talk) 01:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

The reasoning of the past editor (in his own words) is shown at User:Collect/BLP showing precisely why that editor sought to introduce scurrilous material into some bios. Collect (talk) 11:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

• All of the abovementioned material is now stored at sourcewatch.org at their Matt Drudge page, and has been updated and expanded. Off2riorob cites undue weight, and that's probably the only valid argument for excluding it in toto. There may also be a question mark over some of the sources, possibly, but definitely not the majority. Some other editor, not me, should craft an appropriate sentence or three for inclusion. It could be fun to count the number of times this material, in various forms, has been edited in and out of the article (hint: it's a lot of times).  Jabbsworth  05:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Sourcewatch.org is a wiki, and the article thereon appears to be exactly compliant with edits made by Jabbsworth here. Discussions at WP:RS/N make this abundantly clear, and if the same person wrote both copies of the exact same wording, then there is a possible violation of Wikipedia policies about referring to one's own writings as a possible source for any article. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You're getting a little confused. SourceWatch is . not . being . used . as . a . SOURCE. Am I getting through? I do not expect any data to be added to the article using Sourcewatch as the citation. Is that clear? Or are you simply being deliberately obtuse on this issue?  Jabbsworth  12:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

disputed content now at the BLP noticeboard

Please comment if you wish, go to the relevant section at the Noticeboard  Jabbsworth  06:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And like the all the other times ([3], [4], [5], [6]) this gossip has been there - it is deemed UNDUE at the least and violative of WP:BLP as WP:BLP currently stands. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Reading those links is interesting, Collect. This seems to be your pet issue! It's a campaign for you.  Jabbsworth  13:31, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Nope -- WP:BLP is my interest - and I now have edited on the order of five hundred articles in that area, with over 2200 pages on my watchlist. That you are only involved in the same BLP articles as Ratel and TickleMeister were is, however, telling. Cheers. Collect (talk) 20:21, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

As earlier discussions have advised, you should create a brief (one-sentence if possible) passage about this issue using only the most impeccable sources, post it here, and work with other editors to get consensus for adding it. The way you are currently going about it is guaranteed to fail, but there are other approaches. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:19, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Why can't some other editor find a sentence or two? There is so much personal animosity towards me that I'll leave it to someone else. The data is also at SourceWatch. Just go there and search for Matt Drudge.  Jabbsworth  23:08, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And Sourcewatch.org is not WP:RS compliant. [7] Anyone can edit it. To get started, there's a link to your left on the basics of how you can help write history says it all. Many people have contributed to different parts of this project, and anyone can do so, including you! All you need to know is How to edit a page is a WIKI! About as unreliable as is possible. Do you really think a Wiki is a valid source? Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:26, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I never said it was a RS. I'm simply alerting other editors to the data's existence, in readable format, elsewhere. Future editors can access it there and transfer it here, or a modified version thereof. The general feeling about this data is that it is acceptable, in some form. Getting that form right is a job for the wordsmiths. Either that, or keep reverting this page ad infinitum as multiple editors try to add it, in one form or another.  Jabbsworth  01:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

NOTE: My post at [8] was "refactored" by Jabbsworth. The content of it is undeniable, and his posts here are the height of disingenuousness for a person who has abused multiple accounts on Wikipedia. Cheers - and I invite anyone to read the facts as written. Collect (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

• Just for the record, there is now a section at wp:BLPTALK that has extended linking prohibitions all over wikipedia. I last read BLP years ago, and expecting it to be a stable policy, was not aware of this change, until now. So, without providing you a direct link, if any editor wants to do as suggested by Nomoskedasticity and craft a brief summary of that data, you need to go to the SourceWatch.org site, search for "Matt Drudge", and work with the data already collected there. Cheers.  Jabbsworth  03:24, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

The rule was present when Ratel was indeffed for gross abuse of WP:BLP quite a while ago -- I would have thought that could not have elided your notice. Meanwhile, your spamlinks to sourcewatch.org are tiresome. Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

As I said at ANI, the BLP rule is not truly applicable here anyway. Nevertheless, I won't provide a link because smart editors can type web addresses themselves  Jabbsworth  14:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wow -- I fear you do not get it. WP:BLP is a strong policy. Your continued and deliberate violations of the policy are disturbing. Your claim that the policy "is not truly applicable here" is sufficiently erroneous as to alarm others. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

You have shockingly poor reading comprehension skills! You seem unable to parse and understand almost anything I have said. The BLP policy's terms specifically state that the non article space restrictions apply to links (no links here!) that contain material that is "unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices" — none of which applies to the material at SourceWatch. This is like beating my head against a wall. I'm going to have to start ignoring you if you continue tendentiously with wp:IDIDNOTHEARTHAT  Jabbsworth  23:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

And due it may affect living people, then I have to ratify myself and repeat here what I posted in the BLPNB: it is not allowed to post a link to an outside wiki where that content is posted. If that is not outing yourself at least it is a BLP violation, a non-allowed way to circumvent the forbiddance and the respective consensus, even if circumvention was not the purppose. This argument was repeated by every user here, at the BLPNB and at the ANI, so I thought it should not be responded with a complaint to an admin due an alleged stalking, but I was thinking wrong. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:14, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Gobbledegook. Stick to the Spanish wikipedia, as you have been repeatedly advised by many editors. Your long list of blocks [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] may soon be extended if you carry on disruptively like this.  Jabbsworth  23:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure

I found this but I'm not sure if its him.--Free ottoman (talk) 20:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Probably not.--Free ottoman (talk) 20:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Removed a line of text

Specifically "Which makes it even more appalling that he would compare the president of the United States to Adolf Hitler." This sentence adds nothing to the article and is purely opinion. Unless the author of said sentence can prove that it is appalling or more appalling objectively I would expect for this sentence to remain out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MindlessMC (talk • contribs) 01:56, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Trying to update info that has been part of Personal Life section for many years and getting reverted

Iful (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)I've tried twice to fix a broken link to a source for a statement made in the Personal Life section that has been part of this article for 4 years and both my edits have been reverted by Collect. This is the statement, which isn't even controversial: "By early 2009, Drudge earned millions of dollars a year, travelled extensively (Israel, Las Vegas, Geneva), had moved to another property in Miami and become reclusive, communicating regularly only with a select group that included Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Andrew Breitbart.[12]"

I didn't add anything or change the statement, I just fixed the broken link. I checked the edits back to May, 2009, and the wording of that statement was exactly the same back then, but the link to the source for it, a 2009 New Republic article, is now broken. The original statement included a footnote, which I retained; I didn't add it, it was in the article back in May, 2009, yet apparently Collect objects to that and reverted my attempts to fix the link.

The statement and the quote in the footnote have apparently been part of this article for 4 straight years. The source for the reporting is the magazine The New Republic, a reliable source. In reverting my fix to the broken link, Collect posted "this stuff is attributed to unnamed sources - Wikipedia does not use unnamed sources in BLPs, sorry - see WP:BLP." I guess Collect takes exception to the statement in the quote in the footnote that "a source" said something, I guess he's saying that's not reliable because the person isn't named. It's reporting, good reporters get info in a variety of ways. That's just journalism. A reliable source means the source has proven to be reliable over the years, right? The New Republic is not a blog or a tabloid. Per the Wikipedia article on it, The New Republic has been published continuously since 1914 and has a circulation of over 50,000. If Collect's contention is correct, that Wikipedia requires that there be a name and a quotation attached to every statement in a newspaper or magazine article in order for it to be used as a source, there wouldn't be much info on Wikipedia. I don't think it's reasonable to pick through an article and make a decision about whether a statement is sufficiently sourced or to expect that there will be a name attached to every bit of information in an article. Collect has only said "see BLP," I've looked and I don't see anything in the BLP section that says in order for a statement in an article from a reliable source to be used as a source the statement has to be associated with a named person, if he could refer me to what he means that would be good. If info is from a reliable source but the person quoted has not been named people can judge for themselves what weight to give it, I don't think it's up to Wikipedia editors to decide whether a statement is sufficiently sourced. At any rate, that quote in the footnote has been a part of this article for 4 years, why object to it now?

Collect also just reverted my update of info regarding Matt Drudge's property ownership in Miami. This Wikipedia article has contained info regarding his property ownership and the price he paid for his property since August 2007. What I added was info from two reliable sources, The Miami Herald and an article from the site for WTVJ an owned-and-operated television station of the NBC television network, licensed to Miami, Florida. I added new information about the general area where his properties are located and the prices he paid. I went back through the edits, the same statement that's in the current article about where he lives and what he paid for his property has been in this article since August 2007, however, per a recent Miami Herald article, that info is no longer correct. In February 2013, The Miami Herald reported he bought another residence, the newspaper also listed the property he owned in Miami and omitted a property that was listed in an earlier article (because of Collect's reversion that property is now included in this article, even though he no longer owns it). The newspaper reported what he paid for the properties- he has paid over $2 million in cash recently for residences. As a reason for reverting my edit, Collect posted "undue weight on price of real estate - not biographical value." Even though the exact same kind of information has been in this article since 2007? Why is that not biographical? Several news articles linked in this article have previously reported generally where his properties are located and how much he paid for his property, that's not contentious, it's a public record. He's a public figure, it's considered newsworthy, probably especially since in the last two years he paid over $2 million in cash, pretty uncommon. Is there a Wikipedia policy that describes what is and isn't "biographical?" Unless there is some Wikipedia guideline on that, I'd say that's Collect's subjective opinion.

The result of Collect's reverts is that, despite my efforts, this article contains inaccurate information and a link that doesn't work. Since he didn't actually delete this information perhaps he thinks he hasn't run afoul of the Wikipedia preference for not deleting items that have been a part of an article for a long time, but by reverting updates he's doing the same thing as deleting the info. What's the point of having the statement in the article if the link for the source doesn't work and what's the point of leaving info in the article that is no longer correct?

Location of residences of living people has been discussed at BLP/N in the past, and found not to be of encyclopedic value. Take your position up there if you wish it changed. Anecdotal claims not attributable to their source are also of nugatory value in an encyclopedia article (the "Cabots speak only to Lowells" sort of commentary). Wikipedia is not People Magazine, nor is it a tabloid. See [15], unless the location is of specific relevance to the person. That a claim has been in an article for 100 years still does not change Wikipedia policies. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:57, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

File:Matt Drudge.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Matt Drudge.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:31, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

So is there another picture that could be used? Portrait-pictures always improve an article. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:47, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Current new News

Headline-1: FEC chair warns that conservative media like Drudge Report and Sean Hannity face regulation --- like PACs

• http://washingtonexaminer.com/fec-chair-warns-conservative-media-drudge-hannity-face-regulation-like-pacs/article/2548163

QUOTE: "Government officials, reacting to the growing voice of conservative news outlets, especially on the internet, are angling to curtail the media's exemption from federal election laws governing political organizations, a potentially chilling intervention that the chairman of the Federal Election Commission is vowing to fight." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:53, 8 May 2014 (UTC) -- PS:FYI for future WP editing thoughts. I know that some do not like the Washington Times, but this should also be reported in other media also.

Quotes from Matt Drudge

There is a website where anyone can suggest quotes from Matt Drudge, and I found the site very interesting and quotes from Drudge very insightful. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/m/matt_drudge_2.html
FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:44, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, which I enjoyed. Here is one: "I follow my conscience - and this is upsetting to some people, but I maintain that conscience is going to be the only thing between us and communication in the future", Matt Drudge. -- AstroU (talk) 23:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Quotes about Matt Drudge

Donald Trump gives the highest praise to Matt Drudge!

Headline-1: The Donald Trump Conversation: Murdoch, Ailes, NBC and the Rush of Being TV's "Ratings Machine"

• http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/features/donald-trump-murdoch-ailes-nbc-816131

QUOTE: "Matt Drudge is an amazing guy. Politically, one of the legends. He's been so fair to me; he doesn't want anything for himself" -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:05, 20 August 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Donald Trump speaks again.

Headline-2: EXCLUSIVE: Would A President Trump Only Serve One Term?

• http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/03/exclusive-would-a-president-trump-only-serve-one-term/

QUOTE on Matt Drudge, who Trump says he’s met: "I have a great feeling for him. I think he’s done an amazing job and he is a man who, he really does love the country, but he puts freedom of the press, in a sense, above everything else. He really does an amazing job. Yeah, I have a great respect for him. … If he’s in a room, he may be the most important person in the room, but he doesn’t care if anyone knows it. He’s very self-effacing, in other words." -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing. New NEWS today, for future editing if and when Melania Trump goes to live in the White House.