Talk:The Daily Caller/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Menendez section

The neutrality of the section discussing Sen. Menedez is questionable - whole parts of this saga are missing. First, the prostitutes the Washington Post claimed to have found to deny the story were apparently the wrong hookers. Why is there no mention of this?

Also, the senator is under investigation by the FBI, the case itself is not resolved, and the FBI is investigating the source of the allegations. Instead, the section reads as if the case was resolved and the Senator was declared innocent. The section also fails to mention that the alleged prostitutes were underage, according to U.S. law.

This section is already contentious by Wikipedia standards because it involves allegations about a living person. Jodayagi (talk) 18:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

I agree the section as written did not come across as neutral. However, there is no proof that the prostitutes found by the Post are or are not the same as the ones The Daily Caller talked to. The Caller asserts that, but it seems that, as with most things having to do with this story, nothing has been proven.

The fact that nothing has been proven is exactly why the section needs to be more neutral. This is far from an open-and-shut case, and as of today, there is still no resolution one way or the other on the prostitutes. Also, the original section made no mention of any of the other corruption and Senate Ethics questions brought to light by The Daily Caller report, despite the fact that Menendez has already paid for flights taken to correct an "oversight" that violated Senate ethics rules. The entry as written also does not note that the Senator was under investigation by the FBI for at least two months before the Daily Caller ran it's original story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.143.54.125 (talk) 02:42, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, good point about The Daily Caller's prostitutes vs. The Washington Post's prostitutes.

The previous edit of this section looked like a copy and paste edit from the Bob Menendez article. The neutrality of the section in that article is also debatable, given the discussion on that article's talk page. Jodayagi (talk) 03:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article is about the Daily Caller, not Mendez. If you want to put this info in the Mendez article, go ahead. But material about corruption charges against Mendez belong in the Mendez article, not here. Chisme (talk) 17:36, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just editing what is here on this page. Any votes for removing the section from this article altogether? Jodayagi (talk) 01:13, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Neosiber (talk) 02:04, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

No. Chisme (talk) 20:30, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Material about corruption charges absolutely belongs here, for one reason. People come to this page to find out abut The Daily Caller, and the Menendez entry as written goes out of its way to paint TDC as unreliable, if not worse. Without including all of the information about what has turned out to be a very complex matter with NO RESOLUTION as of yet, the entry as written gives an inaccurate description of what TDC is. Also, to comments in the section below, the Menendez affair in a way became about TDC, and was based on TDC reporting. So saying TDC can't be used as a source - whether or not is reliable, is ridiculous. The sources you replaced it with all link to the same story that you removed as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.192.202.137 (talk) 14:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

No one made a compelling case as to why it should stay. It's a controversial news story, and was criticized like any controversial news story. On those grounds alone, it did not deserve a special section on this page. If it merits existence, it should be on Sen. Menendez's page. Jodayagi (talk) 05:41, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Jodayagi. The most obvious guideline to consider is WP:WEIGHT. The entire article, as of this version, is 720 words. That section is 287 words, a whopping 40% of the total. There is no way we can reasonably say that single incident should account for almost half of the ostensibly encyclopedic content we've written on this subject. If the article were a few thousand words, I could understand, but when it's barely more than a stub, that much on one event is unbalanced. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 04:17, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of balance, as requested, I added additional commentary from the Washington Post piece that was cited. While the Post writer claimed he "doubted" that the Caller paid for the bad info or instigated the misinformation, he also judged that it was irresponsible for publishing it in the first place. Activist (talk) 04:33, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I put back the POV banner that was removed by another user, as I still don't feel this has been resolved. I still feel that there's been no addressing of WP:WEIGHT. This section makes up way too much of the page. Also, if citing the Washington Post article, I still think it's relevant the Post, while judging DC was irresponsible, stated that it doubted DC would pay for these claims to be made. That new commentary is appropriate, but it should still mention that other part, in order to be neutral. 70.192.200.140 (talk) 19:44, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

correction: one of the post's bloggers said he didn't think the DC paid anyone to make the claims. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:11, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

A particular piece used as a citation, whether article, blog post or anything else, is either acceptable to use or it's not. The editors have decided that this piece by a WaPo blogger, which can be classified as "extremely critical" of DC, is acceptable. But now we're saying certain sentences within an acceptable article CAN'T be used? That doesn't make sense. If certain sentences can't be used, then the article shouldn't be used at all. Why can't this sentence in the DC article say, "The Washington Post, while doubtful that the Caller had paid anyone to make up the story, was critical of the Caller's "eagerness to publish completely unsubstantiated allegations," concluding that the Caller was "ducking accountability." All of those statements come out of the same paragraph of the piece. That seems completely reasonable to me. (And yes, this is the same person that posted the comment 2 spots above this one. 108.28.133.116 (talk) 13:17, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

More simply put, one of the post's bloggers also said he thought the Caller was eager to publish the allegations and that they were ducking accountability. Either all of those opinions are relevant or none of them are, correct? Not just the ones where he disparages the outlet, while ignoring the one where he said he didn't think they broke the law. Thoughts? 108.28.133.116 (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

It would probably be best not to use newsblogs at all. If it is used (in which case it would be appropriate to mention the intention/doubt) it should be attributed, something like "Jamie Smith, blogging for the Podunk Post, said..." without the aggrandizement of said person, etc. Personally, I would be fine with throwing all the newsblogs out and sticking to the straight reporting of the incident, which i seem to recall also makes the suggestion that there was some kind of breach of duty, if not ethics. No need to go to newsblogs for commentary, either critical or exculpatory. However, it's been a few months since I looked at the material. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 04:42, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson

Tucker Carlson is not a libertarian. There is no citations to back this up, either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:1302:C074:1474:3C61:6D6:6805 (talk) 18:27, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Politically conservative

That is not accurate. I think it should be removed. It does not consider itself conservative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.218.115.225 (talk) 01:55, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Regarding accuracy, Wikipedia publishes information that is verifiable. We say the Daily Caller is conservative because it is verifiable in reliable sources such as the New York Times and the Louisville Courier-Journal. Self-serving positions taken by the subjects of articles about themselves are not reliable. If you want the article to say the Daily Caller's political orientation isn't conservative then the first step is to find reliable, independent sources that support your view. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Daily Caller reporter uses spoof newspaper as source

Slate, "Daily Caller Cites 24-Year-Old Fake Princeton Newspaper to Attack the NYT's Benghazi Reporter" [1] — goethean 15:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Alexa ranking misleading as "Circulation"?

Is it common to use an Alexa ranking as a website's circulation? In the common definition of a newspaper's circulation, a higher number means MORE viewers. For an Alexia ranking, a higher number means LESS viewers. And it provides no easy translation to number of daily visitors. This is really misleading, and should be fixed, not just in this article, but all articles that use ranking instead or actual circulation.--Jeff (talk) 00:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Caller editing this article

Just a heads-up that this article has been edited extensively from the IP address 38.104.30.230 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which is registered to the Daily Caller. To my knowledge, this conflict of interest has not been disclosed. In my view, the edits from the Daily Caller IP have been inappropriate on general grounds (e.g. WP:BLP, promoting discredited allegations against a living person), but are doubly inappropriate given the obvious conflict of interest at work here. I would strongly urge employees of the Daily Caller to review Wikipedia's guidelines on conflicts of interest and paid editing. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Menendez section

There should be an update to the section about Sen. Menendez, now that it's been reported that the senator will be charged with corruption by the FBI. News stories point out that the investigation started after the Daily Caller's stories about him and Melgen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.30.230 (talk) 15:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

This really belongs at Bob Menendez, not here, unless you can find a story that with significant coverage of TDC's role in the matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:34, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Which you have, sorry, I jumped the gun. Just remember to keep the content here focused on TDC's role, and be careful to stay within our strict policy on people accused of crimes. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:37, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm having second thoughts about the appropriateness of this content. The sex scandal was confirmed to have been fabricated, so any mention of it may be a BLP violation. Not sure. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah it might be worth removing that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:2302:9290:A5C1:2506:4ut D59:EF66 (talk) 00:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

The Daily Caller article wasn't about corruption -- it was about prostitution. And it's a stretch to say that the Justice Department started investigating the senator after it read the article in the Daily Caller. Chisme (talk) 06:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Chisme - How is it a stretch considering that what multiple news outlets have reported? The feds starting probing Menendez after the Daily Caller story about him and Melgen. Many places have reported this. And how can you have a "Senator Bob Menendez prostitution controversy and FBI investigation" and not mention the investigation ended with corruption charges? Seems like you're ignoring the citations because you have some weird anti-Daily Caller bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:2302:9290:F413:E40:65BC:D459 (talk) 11:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reliable source saying the TDC story led to the corruption charges. Putting sources together like you're suggesting appears to be original research, specifically improper synthesis. Not to mention that the prostitution claims were debunked, so even mentioning them is problematic from a BLP standpoint. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Is it not time to add that Menendez has been charged with corruption? With his indictment today, there's been widespread mentioning about The Daily Caller's role. Not sure how you can have a Menendez section and not note that he ended up getting indicted over his relationship with the donor the Daily Caller first wrote about.

Stories today about the indictment:

Bloomberg: "The relationship between Menendez and Melgen burst into view before the November 2012 election. The Daily Caller website ran stories saying Menendez had sex with prostitutes at Melgen’s Dominican villa. The site later said two prostitutes were 16. Menendez, who was re-elected, denounced the claims as smears."

Philly.com: "His second term has also been shadowed by questions about his ties to Melgen, which were first circulated by a mysterious tipster weeks before Menendez's 2012 reelection and brought to widespread attention by The Daily Caller, a conservative website."

If the Menendez section is going to take up that much space on the Daily Caller page, you'd think one sentence could mention that Menendez was indicted—a direct result of The Daily Caller exposing his friendship w/ the donor.

73.173.226.85 (talk) 22:57, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Jeffrey Schlinker

Regarding the section on allegations that the Daily Caller made about Senator Menendez, the title for which MastCell have been going back and forth on, this TPM [2] story is of interest. Motsebboh (talk) 04:38, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Whoops! For whatever reason the link goes to the current TPM page. The article was entitled "Is it too soon for the Daily Caller to do a victory lap over Bob Menendez"? by Catherine Thompson, dated August 27, 2015. Oh, and there is also this US News and World Report story [3] noted by another talk page contributor below. Motsebboh (talk) 05:19, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Time to revise Menendez section

Wiki editors: US NEWS AND WORLD REPORT on Aug. 24: "Feds Say 'Corroborating Evidence' Backed Menendez Prostitution Claims" http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/24/feds-say-corroborating-evidence-backed-menendez-prostitution-claims

This would change what is asserted as fact on this page that investigators couldn't substantiate the reporting. I think it's worth updating to reflect the latest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.185.32 (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, the section should probably be redone with a little less emphasis on the alleged falsity of the Daily Caller's scoop and something about the FBI's statement of August 2015 which suggests, though doesn't assert, that the Caller might have been right. Motsebboh (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

What you're proposing is a canonical violation of both the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. The FBI investigated the prostitution allegations and did not find evidence to charge Menendez. The US News piece describes the FBI defending their decision to investigate, but does not indicate that there was any substance to the charges. To take a situation where someone was not charged with a crime (due to lack of evidence that a crime occurred), and instead frame the article to suggest that he did in fact do something criminal, is incredibly poor editing. The relevant part of policy here is WP:BLPGOSSIP. This is yellow journalism at its worst. It doesn't have any place on Wikipedia, and it violates WP:BLP, a fundamental policy. I will act to enforce BLP in this setting as specified by the policy if this material is reinserted. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 8 February 2016 (UTC

On the contrary, the US NEWS piece indicates to all but the most naive or biased that the Justice Department thought there WAS a fair amount of evidence (otherwise why bring it up at all?) but not enough to make an indictment on underage prostitution charges convincing in a court of law. I notice that you seem far more eager to protect the name of the indicted Senator Menendez than the journalistic reputation of the Daily Caller Why did you insist on labeling the allegations made by the Daily Caller FALSE when it was quite obvious from the US News and TPM stories that this assumption was an overreach? Motsebboh (talk) 20:40, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The best available sources indicate that the allegations are false, and possibly paid for by the Daily Caller (these sources include ABC News, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Atlantic, Dominican law enforcement, etc). This is supported by the decision not to charge Menendez. The sourcing for your contention is extremely thin; the US News piece is pretty weak, and beyond that there's nothing. WP:BLP is clear on this; if you're not willing to follow independent, reliable sources then you probably shouldn't edit the article. It seems incredibly cynical and unfair to say that we should insinuate serious wrongdoing when the allegations in question have been investigated and did not lead to any charges, and when the weight of independent, reliable sources supports the idea that these charges are false. Yet you seem intent on doing exactly that. MastCell ^Talk 21:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Again, you have either surpassing bias or surpassing naivety, the former seems more likely since you don't cut The Daily Caller anywhere near the slack that you cut Menendez. The best sources indicate that the Caller story was thinly sourced (which it probably was at the time), not false. The two concepts are very different. A thinly sourced story may turn out to be entirely false but it may also turn out to be entirely true. By the way, the fact that the young women in question later claimed to have been paid to smear Menendez has VERY little probative value. They were, of course, brought forth to do this by a lawyer ally of Menendez and Melgen, who himself was under investigation in the Dominican Republic. No chance of any bribery there (: Motsebboh (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2016 (UTC) PS: Something that was left out of our article until I just put it in today is that ABC News interviewed the same young women just before the Caller did. ABC, of course, didn't go with the story but they almost certainly didn't get a very different story from the women than the Caller did. Otherwise, they would have told us so. Motsebboh (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

You don't seem to have actually read the ABC News piece. It's here. It says that ABC interviewed the women, but their allegations didn't seem remotely credible (they "all provided the same story almost word for word, as if they had been coached"). So ABC News, like every other reputable outlet to whom these rumors were shopped, chose not to run them. The piece goes on to call the allegations "discredited", which is a multisyllabic word for "false" (not just "thinly sourced"). Again, I'm fine with having these discussions on the talkpage, but if you try to push this into the article then I will treat it like the glaring BLP violation that it is. MastCell ^Talk 00:03, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, "may have been discredited" which isn't quite the same as "false". And if the women interviewed were native Spanish speakers being coaxed to speak English or were being translated into English, I can see how their answers may have innocently seemed uniform and coached. Motsebboh (talk) 05:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

[4] [5] Motsebboh (talk) 13:55, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Trump campaign purchasing of mailing list undisclosed.

"Tucker Carlson, FOX News’ new primetime anchor, received a six-figure sum from the Donald Trump campaign for president through his Daily Caller operation–which rented out its email list to Trump–according to Center for Media and Democracy’s newest investigation. CMD estimates the amount to be $150K in cash from the campaign to Daily Caller, which paid Carlson an untold sum." per http://www.alternet.org/exposed-tucker-carlson-his-charity-and-trump-campaign-cash-he-didnt-tell-fox-viewers-about

Time for a section?--Wikipietime (talk) 12:28, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

You need a better source.Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:01, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Milo

We should get something into the article about this. Marquardtika (talk) 23:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 00:02, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Chuck Ross

The info on Chuck Ross [6] is not just based on a "blog", but a blog from Washington Post as well as on Ross' own statement which is included in that article. He's not disputing any of that. One thing though which should be noted is that Ross (although not the folks who run DC) repudiated the things he wrote on his blog. Volunteer Marek  06:37, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

My BLP objection was to the text "a blogger from Texas that regularly included racist and misogynistic verbiage." That is a statement of fact about a BLP sourced to an opinion blog. James J. Lambden (talk) 06:48, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Yet Ross admits this in his statement to WaPo. Volunteer Marek  07:06, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

No. Show me where Ross says his comments were racist and misogynistic. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:16, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

" “I do not now and never have believed that black people are inferior to white people. Those are the words I wrote at the time, but I know I didn’t mean them in the way they read in print."

"Black people are inferior to white people" qualifies as a racist comment, no? Or are you going to dispute that too?  Volunteer Marek  07:29, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

He says he did not and does not believe that and did not mean them the way they were taken. It should be easy enough to find a non-opinion RS to source this to. James J. Lambden (talk) 07:34, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

He says "Those are the words I wrote at the time". So you are disputing that writing "black people are inferior to white people" is racist? Because it sure looks like it. Volunteer Marek  07:45, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Infobox: website or newspaper

There's an RfC on whether a news website should use {{Infobox website}} or {{Infobox newspaper}}: Talk:The Times of Israel#RfC on infobox. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Recent edit

Preserving here by providing this link; my rationale was: "remove nn employee directory from the infobox; restore website type". Danza should probably also go; not sure why he's redlinked. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:39, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Preserving here by providing this link. My rationale for removal was that this is undue / self-cited / promotional material. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

"Ties to white supremacists"

Plainly put, this section is taking spin to a whole new level and producing propagandic bullshit. When the hell did Wikipedia become the Weekly World News rather than an encyclopedia? -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 03:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

If Jason Kessler is not a white supremacist then literally no one is. It's pretty obvious that your criticism isn't sincere and that you're just a fascist who's worried about optics. Goldengirlsdeathsquad (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

The material is well sourced. Conversely, your outrage seems to be based entirely on poor reasoning or a personal POV that doesn't mesh well with reality.- MrX 🖋 13:59, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2018

Add Category:Tucker Carlson Uriahheep228 (talk) 04:22, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: It's not clear whether this category that you've just created and which has only 2 entries beyond the subject himself is helpful or redundant, per WP:COPDEF, WP:EPCATPERS.  Spintendo  12:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's not a very good argument. If a category only has a few entries, adding more entries can't be the problem. Uriahheep228 (talk) 18:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

I've nominated the category Category:Tucker Carlson for deletion here. Bradv 18:58, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Daily Caller story on Media Matters

Jack Shafer isn't just some nobody with yet another blog, he's an experienced writer and editor who focuses on the media. Please stop reverting it. soibangla (talk) 22:02, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Daily_Caller&diff=887930473&oldid=887927916

RfC regarding The Daily Caller

Wikipedia:Reliable Sources Noticeboard#Rfc: The Daily Caller was opened on 10 January 2019 and closed on 13 February 2019. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 13:34, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent dispute

There's a dispute about the lede between 2 editors with problematic histories. After a review of the article, I side with Snooganssnoogans: the material in the lede is more than substantiated by properly referenced material in the body of the article. Tapered (talk) 03:05, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

no other mainstream major internet-only (no TV channel) news outlet that operates similarly has controversies in the lead. Why should Daily Caller? Vox.com, Daily Beast, Buzzfeed, etc. don't, so Daily Caller should not. Daily Caller is NOT Daily Stormer, Right Stuff, etc. It has plenty of non-white and female writers/personalities. Should we now have this Piersanti guy in the New York Times lede? If you don't know who Tom Wright-Piersanti is, you can Google him! Daily Caller has a fact check agreement with Facebook; it's no fringe outlet worth violating WP:LEAD and NPOV against. Atrix20 (talk) 16:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:OTHERTHINGS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:29, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

How do we determinate what an actual single, rather than a double standard is? What you say? Or consistent across the board?Atrix20 (talk) 16:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Already answered at WP:OTHERTHINGS. Your OTHERTHINGS argument doesn't help you. If other articles are as infamous as DC for publishing false and misleading information (that has been widely debunked), and their articles deal with that in the body, then maybe it should be mentioned in their leads. Don't allow their lack to degrade this article.

All sources make mistakes, but with DC and many other extreme and/or fringe left- and right-wing sources, such "mistakes" are a feature and not a bug. It is part of their agenda, facts-be-damned. They believe and push falsehoods. That's the danger of extremism. It makes one blind and one-sided.

RS document DC's fringe and false positions, and they are so remarkable that they must be mentioned in the WP:LEAD. -- BullRangifer (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

See at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources for "The Daily Caller". X1\ (talk) 00:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"The Daily Caller was deprecated in the 2019 RfC, which showed consensus that the site publishes false or fabricated information. Most editors indicated that The Daily Caller is a partisan source with regard to United States politics and that their statements on this topic should be attributed." — Preceding unsigned comment added by BullRangifer (talk • contribs) 02:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• NewDC2.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Swift deletions

The mainstream liberal editors of Wikipedia seem to be guarding edits of this page, wiping away anything deemed not to damage The Daily Caller. I am not affiliated with the DC nor have I ever been so. I want to add articles on their question at the Trump-Trudeau presser in February 2017, and I want to add the fact they are in the White House press pool high up. This entire entry so far could have been written by Media Matters and that disturbs me. I have been a journalist for 20 years, and I am not affiliated with any daily newspaper or any conservative media or leftward media of any kind. DCEditor1 (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC) DCEDITOR1

— Preceding unsigned comment added by DCEditor1 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

"Mainstream liberal editors" appears to be a misguided attempt at a personal attack, which is not appropriate. Wikipedia reflects reliable sources, so Wikipedia fundamentally has a "mainstream" bias. The Daily Caller's reputation speaks for itself.

We have no interest in verifying your personal career history, nor would that generally matter. Your username however does imply a conflict of interest, which would matter, so thanks for clearing that up.

Your edit used a single-paragraph newsblog post from 2010 to imply something about the site's contemporary reputation. This is inappropriate for multiple reasons. Likewise, your addition of an entire section for a single question in 2017, based on a single source, was both WP:UNDUE and written in an informal, non-neutral WP:TONE. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, it is an encylopedia. Grayfell (talk) 06:03, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Grayfell. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I do think DCEditor1 has a very good point that the emphasis given to controversies on this relatively mainstream outlet (ie NOT of viewpoints that characterize things like Vanguard News Network on the right or ChapoTrapHouse on the left), vs others, both left and right, is disproportionate and unfair, especially with regard to the lede, but really, the article in general. One could be forgiven for thinking someone or some people have an ax to grind with the Caller.Atrix20 (talk) 06:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Yep. I have a good point. The bias and knee-jerk behavior here is apparent. See the eagerness to suggest my title (DCEDITOR1) means "Daily Caller editor." No, the DC stands for "District of Columbia." As in that is where I live and work as a JOURNALIST. As for encyclopedias being different than newspapers, yes -- they are. They are far more objective. The lead to the Caller's post is a disgrace. The article as a whole gets a C-minus from me. It's Antifa-journalism.

"The Daily Caller's reputation speaks for itself." So disappointing, the bias.

DCEditor1 (talk) 23:20, 3 September 2019 (UTC)DCEDITOR1 (Disclaimer for ideological ax-grinders: DC stands for "District of Columbia.")

I concur, and at this point, I think this article is in severe violation of WP:NPOV. Describing DC as "white supremacist" and a purveyor of fake news *in the lede*? There are ways of writing about controversial publications that describe the controversies without turning a WP article into a hitpiece more suited for RationalWiki. At the very least, the lede should be reverted back to what it was prior to June 2019. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 18:28, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I 100% agree. Yes the DC has had issues, but generally speaking, the scale of the issue is not exceptional to mainstream news outlets, and therefore should not be in the lede. Atrix20 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

If you're suggesting reverting this edit which added those terms in the lead, I think that's separate from the original topic in this thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Caller has published numerous false stories and shoddy journalism, and has failed, for years, to deal with its "white nationalist problem". One example which was recently covered is this puff-piece, which provides flattering coverage of a hoax by Michael Peinovich and Andrew Anglin without ever mentioning that these people are swastika-collecting neo-Nazis pushing an explicitly racist, anti-democratic agenda. Instead it says that they have a "mission of preserving American culture and white identity." The Daily Caller later claimed not to know that the article's author was a white supremacist himself, but no other editor noticed these glaring flaws before publishing? The story is still up, as of today so, so they apparently feel that its still an acceptable representation of their brand of journalism. They are not a credible news outlet, and should not be presented as such. Grayfell (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Your quote, namely "The Daily Caller has published numerous false stories and shoddy journalism" is something that can be said of all news organizations. Especially if you swap out WNs for extreme-left communists, etc.Atrix20 (talk) 01:50, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Per countless reliable sources, the recurring publication of false news and white supremacist content are defining problems for the Daily Caller specifically. If sources are similar for other outlets, consider discussing at those outlet's talk pages, but be mindful of WP:POINT. Comparing white nationalists to communists is false equivalence, also. There is no logical reason to assume that there are only two sides, or that both sides are similar, or that this would make a difference even if it were true. We have to judge all articles based on sources for those articles. Implying that some other, unnamed outlets must be just as bad is a dead-end. Grayfell (talk) 02:32, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Your quote, namely "The Daily Caller has published numerous false stories and shoddy journalism" is something that can be said of all news organizations No, it actually can't. Especially if you swap out WNs for extreme-left communists, etc. Huh? What are you talking about? What news organizations with "extreme-left communists" are you referring to specifically? Volunteer Marek 04:59, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Erasing a cite to quoted material

I made this edit with an explanation "Added cite to Daily Caller after sentence with a direct quote. WP:RS says "To ensure accuracy, the text of quoted material is best taken from (and cited to) the original source being quoted." Also replaced "alleging" with "said that sources said", see MOS:ALLEGED." In other words, I made a slight edit as required by Wikipedia guidelines. Two minutes later Snooganssnoogans made this reversion with an edit summary that does not give a reason. Does anyone agree with Snooganssnoogans, or with me? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

They ran a baseless story. They didn't just report on what some sources out there said. Given the record of this shit outlet, it's fair to assume that zero vetting or critical thinking went into following up what the "sources" said. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:38, 22 September 2019 (UTC

To anyone who thinks that reply has the slightest relevance: the direct quote was originally added by [Snooganssnoogans]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:21, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, are you able to maintain absolute neutrality with respect to this subject? If not, it's better to just move on from this article. It's not worth getting into a heated edit-war over. Wikipedia should be an enjoyable experience for all. This goes for all editors here, btw. -- œ^™ 04:53, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Along the same lines ... Snooganssnoogans added a section with edit summary = The Daily Caller published a deceptively edited video where House Representative Ilhan Omar appeared to claim Americans "should be more fearful of white men." The Washington Post fact-checker noted that the video omitted crucial context that misled viewers as to what she was saying.) I added attribution and attempted to add this sentence: The fact-checker later added "Correction: An earlier version of this article incorrectly attributed the deceptive video to the Daily Caller and said it was tweeted by a Daily Caller reporter. Neither statement is correct." My added sentence didn't survive. Bradv removed it with the edit summary "stick to the source", perhaps missing that the correction is in the cited (Washington Post) source, for anyone who can't see it here is a Wayback copy). So I tried to restore the sentence, but Grayfell removed it again. So, again, here I am checking whether others might agree with me. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I've removed the whole sentence. I can't find any sources that still attribute the fake video to TDC, and the reporter that tweeted it no longer works there. – bradv🍁 17:19, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Bradv: I believe it would be a better solution if you would self-revert instead, or approve my reverting you, now that you realize that the added sentence was true and sourced. By mentioning the accusation plus the correction, we had a clear signal to readers that The Daily Caller was subject to "fact checking" that was at least occasionally totally wrong. The accusation was deemed worthy of mention i.e. due while people thought it was true, so it is due as well when people see it was false. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 18:33, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

What's the point of including the information if it has nothing to do with the subject of the article? – bradv🍁 18:39, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A false accusation against The Daily Caller has to do with The Daily Caller. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A false accusation which was retracted and has not been the subject of any coverage itself. We don't report on those. – bradv🍁 19:15, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I lack support to revert Bradv. But at least Bradv + Grayfell have stopped editing to preserve the falsehood but remove the correction. I'll take half a loaf. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:28, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

side issue: create and use a Wikipedia account please

Hi to the charlesglasseresq person, thank you for replying below. I know you have been asked already at the administrative noticeboard, and perhaps elsewhere, could you please create and use a Wikipedia account to facilitate our discussion? I personally see no reason why you would want not to do that, and you are being asked by me and others to do that. You are already identifying yourself as a person having email address charlesglasseresq(at)gmail.com, and you seem to be doing the opposite of trying to hide your multiple edits. But if you don't create an account and log in to use it when you edit in Wikipedia articles or Talk pages, then you make it hard for me to see your contributions together. E.g. so I could tell if you are going back and forth with editor Robert McClenon or someone else about the very same or similar stuff I may otherwise be discussing with you at a different page. It would help me to be able to click on and see all your contributions together in one place, like you can do for me. Right now when I click on your last non-logged-in temporary i.p. address (2601:8C:C301:14B0:D9EC:E0D5:A3D7:6CB9 (talk) instead, I can see only two contributions: your comment below and one at User:Robert McClenon's page. I can't tell if you are asking the same stuff, and getting others' replies, at several other user talk pages, for example. I can't super-easily find my way to the discussion at an administrative noticeboard (actually i don't know which one of those it is where I saw the discussion going on). And nor can I expect that Robert McClenon or others will see that I am conversing with you here unless I give them notice in some other way (such as by pinging them, like i do by this: @Robert McClenon: or by my referring to them with their username User:Robert McClenon, in an edit where i sign my username). And on your side, without an account, you yourself cannot reliably check on all of your own postings and see if you have gotten replies. And I know that you are likely to miss others' comments so it is likely that my own efforts are likely duplicative and being partly wasted, too. Your creating and using one Wikipedia account does not preclude you from having a secret, side conversation with anyone, that no one else can see, such as for example an email conversation back and forth with me starting by an email to my personal email account. This would be a courtesy to me personally, allowing me to justify to myself my spending effort to converse with you on this with some degree of efficiency, rather than my choosing to spend my time writing about historic places like I usually do.

To try to make a legal analogy, suppose you were in actual litigation with a bureaucratic government agency having many individuals, some potentially sympathetic to you and some not, would it be okay for you to send a legal filing to just one of the persons at the agency? And perhaps to receive reply back from some of those persons? Where they would have no means to share your filing, or theirs, to all the others? And for you to send similar but perhaps different filings to some other persons at the agency? Surely you can see the efficiency of allowing all the parties to be able to see all the legal, on-the-record-type filings back and forth, as part of one on-the-record legal-type dispute.

Or, do you suspect something nefarious, like perhaps that i or others would do something bad to you like using administrative powers to block your account at some point in the future, if they judged you to be behaving unforgivably badly in some way? Cutting off on-the-record-type discussion. Technically, blocking your account could be done by an administrator (not me, i am not an administrator), but any such blocking person would be accountable for their doing that, and my own focus would turn to that issue. I don't think that would happen though if you continue to act like a reasonable person as your separate postings show that you are. And if that did happens, c'est la vie, and you and I could not be prevented from having a side discussion through our email accounts. Do you suspect something nefarious (if so please explain)? Do you have any other reason not to do this? Personally if you won't go along with this request and/or don't reply, then I will probably judge that you are too willing to waste my time and the time of other well-meaning editors too, and I likely will drop out of any discussion with you. --Doncram (talk) 14:16, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

P.S. If you will create an account, probably you should use some account name clearly identifying yourself, such as "charlesglasser" or "charlesglasseresq", because you are clearly already identifying yourself. Which most editors will appreciate, whether or not they have themselves chosen to self-identify their real-life selves. --Doncram (talk) 14:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hello All: Thanks so much for taking the time. No, I am certainly not trying to hide communications with one person from another or anything opaque. You have to understand I really am a "noob" regarding WP codes and pages and process. I created an account CharlesGlasserEsq and I hope that's the right start.

I totally do NOT want to give the impression that I think there is something nefarious on WP's part. It just that the process seems overwhelming. I *do* think, having looked at the edit war that preceeded me that at least one editor has a degree of emotional attachment to the article, but I do NOT mean any ad hominem attack by that. Looking over the edit history and talk page, I think we can agree that there was some needless acrimony on both sides. All I want to do -- really and truly -- is present to a fair-minded and non-invested editor(s) a short and clear explanation of where the article is factually incorrect or not in keeping with WP's policies and mission of viewpoint neutral publication. I apologize deeply for causing anyone anymore work than needed, and ANYTHING I can do to simplify this and turn the heat down, just tell me and 'twill be done. And here's my pathetic attempt at a "cc" so everyone I've contacted knows I'm playing it straight. @Robert McClenon: @Doncram and Doncram: CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

Thank you, for taking me seriously and responding this way. And for your apologies (i think to others than me).

By the way i went back to the admin discussion (wp:AN#The Daily Caller?) and i see that it was Barkeep and TFD who were suggesting there that you create a separate account, and they are participating here below, so I don't need to follow up to anyone else and it seems all discussions about this side issue are now closed. Great.

But please, do take Barkeep and TFD's other advice there, that you should also read the plain and simple conflict of interest guide and/or wp:COI if you have not done so already.

Also, another benefit to you now with an account is that i and others can now possibly have constructive side discussions with you at your new User talk page. Like perhaps more about communication style and strategies. So that discussion about content issues, presumably to be continued below, can be better and can be free of off-topic advice-type stuff. And we can notify you there of anything we think you need to see, and we will know that you receive those notifications. I will comment there now. Again, thanks! --Doncram (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

about controversies

At an administrative noticeboard, I saw dispute about this article's objectivity (and quarreling about where a "DC"-related lawyer should discuss issues with the article: the answer is: here), I have not ever edited here before and I usually stick to non-controversial topics (i usually write about historic sites). However, at first glance the current introduction is overly negative and comes across not reflecting well on Wikipedia, IMHO. [It seems accusatory in a petulant, unprofessional way, to me.]

Currently it starts with one or two factual sentences, then BAM! there is:

The Daily Caller has published numerous false stories, as well as shared deceptively edited videos and photos. The website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change. The website has published articles by white supremacists, such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow. Scott Greer was The Daily Caller's deputy editor until 2018, when it was revealed that he published articles espousing white nationalist, racist anti-black and antisemitic views under a pseudonym in white supremacist publications.

Some have pointed out that "has published numerous false stories" would apply to most or all major news sources; I agree, and this comes across as unfair/inappropriate and probably "wp:UNDUE". The issue has to be about perhaps might be about percentage or extent or duration of false or bad stuff getting published, as viewed in general (where the generality of that view is to be established from sources, as I presume may be documented from reliable sources). Rather than appearing to be flat negative judgmental statement in the voice of Wikipedia. Perhaps the above passage, or one like it, could/should be used as an intro to the "Controversies" section, which currently has no introduction, where it would be immediately followed by statements supporting its assertions. Something more summary, introducing the fact of "DC" having many controversies, and there being extensive bad patterns about videos and photos, should be included in the lede instead, IMHO. The intro can include references (though that's not required if it is summarizing info later in the article). In order to be more objective, it could be something like: "The Daily Caller is widely regarded as controversial [perhaps cite some here], due largely to it having an extensive history of publishing false stories and pulishing deceptively edited videos and photos, without apology [assuming that is true, and cite sources]." I think something like that would be more objective. There would need to be support later in the article about the extent of "untruthiness" or whatever in the DC, relative to "untruthiness" in other media. Just reporting a list of stories proven false is not enough; again one could do that for any long-established news source.

To the lawyer-person and concerned others, is this a decent way to start? --Doncram (talk) 05:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Doncram. I think I'm the "lawyer-person" to who you refer. I was only recently asked by The Daily Caller to help sort out some factual inaccuracies and biased material. I agree wholeheartedly that whoever the people who preceeded me went about it in a confrontational, rather than cooperative way. That's no good. I also have to admit that the labyrinth of pages and policies is confusing, and I have been asking anyone and everyone for help in navigation, and find some editor(s) with no "dog in the fight" to read a simple, short point-by-point paper from me showing what is wrong and what ought to be improved. Some folks who seem invested in this article changed to focus to me personally and inferred some kind of legal threat. Nope. The Daily Caller has no interest in suing anybody. They just want a clean, fair shake, and a chance to collaboratively resolve this. I seem to keep running into a brick wall. Any help or guidance is greatly appreciated.

2601:8C:C301:14B0:D9EC:E0D5:A3D7:6CB9 (talk) 12:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Charles Glasser

Hi, charlesglasseresq-type-person, my first advice/request is now posted above at #side issue: create and use a Wikipedia account please; could you please reply there about that side issue?

And yes, I and most if not all editors conversing with you do understand and agree that:

1. it is hard/impossible for anyone to be aware of, much less understand, all of Wikipedia's labyrinth of written and unwritten policies/guidelines/essays/practices (hmm, like it is impossible for anyone like me to know all the ins and outs of say the U.S. legal system, say)
2. it is inherently difficult to get anything done here (perhaps like it is difficult for regular people like me to get anything done in the U.S. legal system)
3. while it is sort of reasonable for some here to wonder if there might be unacceptable legal threats from you or The Daily Caller involved here, and to be concerned, I and most others agree that there are not
4. you and others are entitled to address factual inaccuracies and biased material in The Daily Caller article, and I and other editors really do want to address those. Though we may be inefficient about doing that.
5. you have my automatic sympathy, and the same from most if not all other editors here

You are welcome to send that "simple, short point-by-point paper" to me personally by email to me, using "email to me"-type link from my User page or my User talk page. I will reply by email, which will give you my personal email address in the process. If you do that, could you clarify for me whether or not you allow me to post all or part of that paper on Wikipedia in some way, so that others can see it too, and hopefully participate in a relatively efficient discussion about what it raises? I will try to abide by whatever conditions you want to impose, if any. If you do email me now or in the future and I don't reply promptly (which could happen as I don't check email very often), please do give me notice at my User talk page (which I will see, and you can know that I have seen). sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, is there a reason you're taking private receipt of these rather than encouraging them to be posted here? It's not my favorite thing when OTRS agents do this but at least that's a formal process, which other (OTRS agents) can audit. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49, thank you; in general i do want to encourage a completely public discussion. But the charlesglasser-type-person did not choose to post it already, and I do want to allow for all options, maybe there are reasons why the whole thing could not be posted. I dunno maybe some stuff should be redacted, maybe there are in fact some unacceptable legal-type-threats in part of it. Perhaps that document is in fact pretty substantial, and/or otherwise hard to discuss in one Wikipedia discussion (in fact I rather assume that it the case). Surely you must understand that it can work badly for an editor to make a too-long posting, which can easily be dismissed (e.g. by one or a few editors simply replying "tldr" (abbreviation for too-long-didnt-read, or by their seizing upon one small matter to completely dismiss it all). To continue analogy to U.S. legal system, they could probably use the advice of a lawyer here, too, in part about how to get their issues across. Like I wish I had, myself, and I really would have paid a lot of real-life money for, actually, when I myself was involved in a huge awful Wikipedia arbitration proceeding.) I suspect I would suggest that it be broken up into pieces for posting/discussion in separate discussion sections here, while perhaps having it be posted in one complete document form somewhere else for reference (e.g. at some location like Talk:The Daily Caller/complete2019-10-16posting. --Doncram (talk) 15:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Doncram, well I would restate my discomfort with that idea in cases like these. But if that's the case it should go through OTRS as agents who have signed confidentiality agreements and who handle these requests in general - no disrespect to you but this keeps it in a normal Wikipedia work queue. If the IP is reading this he can see how to contact us here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Now that you say that, yes, I guess I agree. The OTRS system (wp:OTRS?) is in fact very good and editors there are in fact bound by proper confidentiality agreements and otherwise professional, and I guess that would be more regular work queue-like. So i too would be very happy if the document was sent there and any necessary or helpful private correspondence about how to dole out the issues properly happened there, instead of me trying to feel my way through a process ad hoc, and me perhaps being seen as untrustworthy or at fault in some way, even if only for being slow to respond (which could well be an issue). So sure, do follow Barkeep49's advice. The person is still free to send it to me, though. --Doncram (talk) 15:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that Charles Glaser has or intends to raise any legal issues that would require OTRS. I don't think either that there is anything in this article that they could review and if there is I am sure that we could quickly correct it without any need to refer to OTRS. TFD (talk) 16:11, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The Four Deuces,well if the IP desired to make a formal legal demand that would go to WMF legal. In this case I agree that there's no legal demand being made (or likely to be made). Instead there is a content request which I think will ultimately need to be handled here. I am skeptical that a private submission is a necessary intermediary stage to bringing it here, but if it is needed then doing that through OTRS is my thought. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

If you find factual inaccuracies, then point them out and either show that what is written here does not reflect the source or that the source conflicts with other reliable sources.

I think there is a problem with tone. For example, the lead says, "The website has published articles by white supremacists, such as Jason Kessler and Peter Brimelow." Brimelow has been published (and was often a member of the editorial board) of many mainstream publications: the Financial Post (later the National Post), Macleans's and the Toronto Sun in Canada, and Barron's, Fortune, the Times of London and the National Review.[7] The views he expresses in his articles have remained the same throughout his career. He defended white Rhodesia for example on the basis that whites were more intelligent than blacks, which was considered racist even in the 70s. A well-written article would explain why his contribution to the Daily Caller is crucial information about the Daily Caller, while it receives little or no coverage in articles about the other publications.

One of the things that are helpful in developing articles is looking at articles in other publications. They can provide a guide about what facts and opinions should be presented and what weight to assign them. I haven't found any, perhaps you know of some. Particularly useful would be an entry in a journalism textbook about news websites.

I don't discuss articles in emails, but you are welcome to post questions or comments to my talk page.

TFD (talk) 15:05, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! By the way i wonder if there exists any semi-objective-type rating system about truthiness of various news sources. And, also the accusatory item "The website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change" is also something that could be said about almost all major news sources. I think we are agreeing that the accusatory-type passage is not acceptable. Should you or I edit the article to remove that now, already? But I don't have an alternative acceptable passage to put in its place, and maybe removing that now would confuse matters here. --Doncram (talk) 16:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"The website publishes articles that dispute the scientific consensus on climate change" is also something that could be said about almost all major news sources. That's complete nonsense. I suggest you read more news sources. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The content in this article strictly adheres to RS coverage of this "news" outlet. That you personally feel that other news outlets are the same as the Daily Caller and other far-right conspiracy websites is not a reason to whitewash content about the Daily Caller. If the NYT regularly publishes white nationalist screeds, climate change denial articles in its straight news stories, and regularly publishes batshit insane conspiracy theories and falsehoods that normal news outlets have to fact-check and correct, without any redeeming journalistic content, then the NYT article would look the same. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

It is not complete nonsense. TFD's response just below refutes that, e.g. that while DC may promote climate change denial as part of a conservative- or right-wing-type strategy, other sources do publish opinion pieces on both sides. I personally include opinion pieces as "articles"; there is a continuum of labelling/presentation about "articles" in media and i don't know, maybe everything that the DC publishes is implicitly understood as equivalent to what would be more carefully labelled as opinion pieces elsewhere. But also I am sure the New York Times and many other well-regarded sources have published articles disputing some aspects of climate change, even not labelled as being non-scientific opinions (of course more so in the long-ago past). Even today there absolutely are plenty of gray areas where some part or another of climate change science is in question among real scientists (although nowadays probably not calling the overall situation into question). If you deny that last statement by me then you would be a liar or you would be lying for effect or some such thing. And, you have no call to accuse me about what you think I personally feel. Sure, maybe you are exaggerating for effect, and maybe I should be open to rough-and-tumble back-and-forth here. But liking using profanity in general (and I note "batshit" is already used in that rant), this is offensive to some (at least me), and shows disregard for civil processes and values. It does seem to me like you are making an uncalled-for wp:PERSONAL ATTACK against me. This discussion is not about "truth" about climate change, this is about what can be properly said, in encyclopedic voice, about what general/informed/received/validated wisdom is about DC's treatment of that issue. If Snooganssnoogans can't discuss this without making personal attacks against me or the lawyer-person or others here, then that should be reviewed at wp:ANI or elsewhere with view towards banning Snooganssnoogans' continued participation here or maybe from climate change generally. --Doncram (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Here is what Science magazine and the award-winning E & E News said in 2019 about The Daily Caller's climate reporting: "Its climate reporting focuses on doubt and highlights data that suggests climate concerns from the world’s leading science agencies and organizations are incorrect."[8] Do you suggest we remove or downplay top-tier RS content like this because some Wikipedia editors desperately feel a need to do some false balance and obscure the differences between legit news outlets that occasionally make well-intentioned mistakes and fringe websites that pump out disinformation? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to amend that, maybe I am too harsh in my tone back. Now when I find my way back to the admin noticeboard discussion (wp:AN#The Daily Caller?) i see that Snooganssnoogans was playing what looks to me like a reasonably constructive role, and also I see mention that there may have been some inappropriate personal attack-type stuff sent in their direction previously. This is more complicated than I knew. Allow me to apologize if i have offended back, and I don't actually mind anything said so far in my direction, and hopefully we can just leave anything personal-attack-like in the past, and proceed to discuss just the content stuff here. --Doncram (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I would like to see reliably sourced articles about the Daily Caller so that we can find a different way of stating this. It would probably be more precise to say that as part of its U.S. conservative policy, it promotes climate change denial through the publication of misleading articles by climate change deniers who do not accept scientific consensus. Mainstream sources OTOH may publish opinion pieces by climate change deniers to show both sides of the debate (which also opens them to criticism.)

The current phrasing implies this, but encyclopedic articles should not imply anything but directly present all statements of fact and opinion attributed to reliable sources. Snooganssnoogans, if you're talking to Democrats in the Hamptons or the Bay area, saying they publish climate change deniers is shorthand that conveys information based on shared knowledge and beliefs. But John Doe in Tennessee or anyone else who lacks the same sophistication as us would miss a lot and needs to have a clear explanation.

TFD (talk) 17:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, I tend to agree. The coverage of the "controversies" looks solidly sourced, and the lede summarizes them fairly, which is what the lede is supposed to do. It might need a moderate expansion — it only mentions the founding and skips the rest of the history — but what it does say is basically fine. XOR'easter (talk) 17:54, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Except that controversy sections are poor style and discouraged. Controversies should be incorporated into the relevant sections. per Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies. While it's an essay, it is based on policy and guidelines. TFD (talk) 18:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

As that essay says, A section dedicated to negative material is sometimes appropriate, if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location. It goes on to describe pros and cons of that organizational scheme (e.g., can be a troll magnet, but can also keep disruption isolated). Moreover, when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be "Controversies", with subsection titles indicating what these are about. Sometimes the simplest approach is best! I'd be inclined to say that the current page structure is "fine but could potentially be improved". XOR'easter (talk) 19:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Why are there no controversy sections for Adolph Hitler, Charles Manson or Osama bin Laden? Do you think they would be improved if it were added? I prefer them the way they are where they explain what these men did without hammering readers over the head. TFD (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

"Controversy" sections in all those cases would be needless; I certainly wouldn't try to add them, or to reorganize the existing material into them. But I don't think those articles provide a very useful comparison. Here, we have a publication that is well-known for taking (ahem) controversial positions. (Indeed, one might fairly say that that's their business model.) How are we to write about that? Multiple options suggest themselves. Describing those incidents in roughly chronological order, for example, would get the job done. So would grouping them thematically (environment issues, clashes with other publications, attacks on politicians, ...). All I'm saying is that the current approach is serviceable, while I expect it could be improved. XOR'easter (talk) 21:40, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

You could have a Hitler controversies section: Beerhall Putsch, relations with niece, Night of the Long Knives, Kristallnacht, Munich summit, etc. If Wikipedia had been around in the 20s and 30s that's how the article might have appeared. Fortunately, professional writers and academics don't present narratives in that style, so we have models to follow. If you think controversy sections are good style, can you point to any encyclopedias that use them? TFD (talk) 02:41, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had been around in the '30s, then the article would have been built up as events transpired, adding items roughly chronologically, until someone took the time to reorganize the accumulated material. I'm not saying that's good, only that it is serviceable.

Fortunately, I have the 15th edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica at home. Volume 24 in the Macropaedia ("Knowledge in Depth") says Metaphysics on the spine; that looks like a thing people have argued about. Pages 20–23 are devoted to a section titled "Criticisms of Metaphysics." Later in that same volume, the article on Molière devotes a section to "Scandals and successes," which is pretty close to "Controversies." The article on Newton has it both ways, spreading talk of controversies throughout while also having a section devoted to them in the middle of the biography. Turning to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, "Controversy" sections turn up now and then [9][10][11][12][13], as do sections of "Criticisms" [14][15][16]. It is perhaps not an inspired way to write, and I would generally try to improve upon it; all I want to say is that here, it isn't so bad. XOR'easter (talk) 04:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi folks: I appreciate Doncram and Barkeep49 comments above, and I have created an account, and in that section explained where I'm at. And in light of our shared interests want to make it clear that I totally want to make "my case" as public and transparent as possible, and to assure everyone that there is NO repeat NO intention of filing any kind of legal action. That's not what I do. I'm a lawyer who *defends* all kinds of speakers, from the ACLU to Greenpeace to The Heritage Foundation and I was retained specifically to try and undo the (IMHO obnoxious) approach made by previous people on behalf of the Daily Caller. In short, tell me where and to whom to send my document, and let's move forward! Thanks again for all your trouble. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 18:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC) CharlesGlasserEsq

Charles, thanks for doing all of that. I think the best way forward if for you to indicate what specific changes you want made here on the talk page, making it clear what text you think needs to be removed, added, or modified with a rationale. For example "Please remove the text XXXXX because it is not cited to a reliable source" or "Please add text XXXXX, as you can see here (link) this is a reliable source that supports adding it" or "Please change the wording of text XXXX because it does not accurately reflect the source text" or something like that. Does that make sense? --Jayron32 18:30, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

The way the process works is that you discuss your concerns at this talk page and if you don't like the results, then you can bring your concerns to various noticeboards and fora. (It's a bit like England that had different courts for different types of disputes.) I suggest you start a new section and post your document. If it is lengthy then we can hat it. Then we can determine how to proceed. The goal is that this article should read like one in an academic textbook, encyclopedia or mainstream magazine or newspaper.

TFD (talk) 18:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks much, TFD that's super helpful. I am going to get my identity verified so everyone knows I'm not some fraudster or something, which may take a few days I'm told. Then I will create a separate new section and include the specifics. I totally get that any article on WP should read like those in an "academic textbook, encyclopedia or mainstream magazine or newspaper" and not a personalized polemic either pro or con. Thanks again, CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 18:56, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

CharlesGlasserEsq, I appreciate your statement that "there is NO repeat NO intention of filing any kind of legal action." Unfortunately, because you are acting in the capacity of a retained lawyer for the Daily Caller ("I was retained specifically ... on behalf of the Daily Caller."), everything you do here, and all responses to it, automatically are different than normal proceedings at Wikipedia. You represent them in a legal capacity, and are unable to do otherwise.

It would be reassuring if you were here as an interested person who was not acting in a legal capacity. The Daily Caller does not need, and should not use, the official legal system (a licensed lawyer) to do this work.

Otherwise, the topic, like all topics in articles, is governed by what RS say, not the legal system. Your quibble is with the sources. Can we word it differently? Maybe, but it will still reflect negatively on The Daily Caller because RS have indeed noted their literal promotion of unscientific views on climate change. They are climate change deniers. Are they embarrassed by that fact, or are they denying it? What is the real problem? Is what we've included not true? -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

BullRangifer Just for the record (and clarity) the fact that I am an attorney does NOT mean I am acting in that capacity. I'm also a professor of Media Ethics at two major universities. Having me try to straighten this out is NOT "engaging the legal system." That would be a lawsuit: something that isn't even under consideration. LOL, if I buy a hot dog from a vendor on the street, is he or she "engaging" legal counsel? I'm here as a media adviser and ethicist. Nothing more, OK? And as to your asking me about "climate change" stuff, let's leave the specifics to when I am able to present something to everyone, instead of getting sidetracked on this or that specific. There's no rush, let's get it right. Deal? CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@CharlesGlasserEsq: It's more like you walking up to a hot dog cart and telling them you've been retained by the bank across the block to purchase a hot dog. It's not a legal proceeding, but the hot dog vendor's going to be mighty concerned about why the bank retained an attorney for the job. ^creffpublic _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 20:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

talk to the boss, That's pretty funny, I ought to try that and see what happens! Seriously though, given the deservedly sh*tty reputations of lawyers, I get your concern, but please, judge me by what I say and do. All I ask is a fair chance, and make a promise to treat others with kindness and respect. CharlesGlasserEsq (talk) 20:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)CharlesGlasserEsq

The issues I see here are mostly regarding the material presented, not their accuracy per se. When 3/4 of the intro and a similar amount of the article is highly critical/negative, it seems to clearly fail WP:NPOV. Contrast this with HuffPost which doesn't even have a section on criticism or controversies, despite being numerous. CharlesGlasserEsq has a point. Buffs (talk) 22:03, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

NPOV doesn't mean saying equal proportions of positive and negative things. It means reflecting the available sources fairly. (And perhaps much more could be said about the HuffPo's bad record with antivax nonsense, for example, but that would be an issue for that Talk page, not this.) XOR'easter (talk) 23:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

No, it means that we provide the same weight that reliable sources do. Also compare the tone with "Daily Caller" in a book published by ABC-CLIO. While negative tone is effective in preaching to the converted, it tends to turn off the general reader, who may even question the claims made. I think that a good model would be The Sun (United Kingdom). It has no controversy section although the article successfully mentions all the major controversies. It's much more effective than this article. TFD (talk) 02:27, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Several comments ago, I suggested reorganizing this article more chronologically, which would bring it somewhat closer to resembling the "History" section of The Sun (United Kingdom) in organization. I am not very impressed by the depth of coverage in that ABC-CLIO item, and it is a few years old in a rather fast-moving field. It would, however, be helpful in fleshing out the historical overview, and I am glad you pointed it out. XOR'easter (talk) 05:23, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I tried my hand at reorganizing the article so that it is less of a miscellaneous pile. With luck, this will be conducive to improving it further, but I don't know when I'll next have a solid block of time available to do more. XOR'easter (talk) 14:17, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

XOR'easter I never said NPOV means equal proportions of positive and negative things and I would greatly appreciate it if you didn't re-interpret my words in a manner I didn't intend them. I said it fails NPOV and I meant it. I cited another article simply as a comparison, not that it was a particularly good article or that its balance is NPOV either. But in comparison, CharlesGlasserEsq has a point that WP is treating articles differently based on political persuasion. I don't think The Daily Caller is a particularly good source of information. I feel the same about HuffPo. Both are horribly slanted, exaggerated, and deal with insinuation and inuendo as if they are facts. This should be an article about The Daily Caller, not a just a list of all of its "wrongs". THAT is not NPOV. FWIW, I'd feel the same about HuffPo's article. Buffs (talk) 16:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The ABC-CLIO article is brief, obviously this article should be longer. But it provides an example of how to cover the topic in a neutral tone, as does the Sun Wikipedia article. It would helpful if someone could find a longer article in a reliable source. But to me, the rap sheet approach doesn't provide what I want to know: how common are false stories and why do they publish them? Is it an ideological motivation, are they trying to sell copy, or is there lack of control over investigative reporters? The rap sheet appraoch is designed to discredit the site, without answering key questions. I agree though that organizing the article chronologically would improve the tone.

To provide one example. The article mentions that Peter Brimelow (who has been called a white supremacist) is a contributor, but doesn't explain whether the site has a white supremacist editorial policy. Since one doesn't necessarily follow the other (Brimelow has written for many respectable publications), the text implies the Daily Caller is white supremacist without providing any sources that explicitly say that.

TFD (talk) 16:49, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

It's extraordinarily disingenuous to suggest that the only thing that relates the Daily Caller to white supremacism is Brimelow's op-eds. The deputy editor of the DC was literally a white supremacist for Christ's sake. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

I didn't suggest that the only thing that relates the Daily Caller to white supremacism is Brimelow's op-eds. But the implicit argument in your second sentence is synthesis. You need a reliable secondary source that explicitly says that. Bear in mind that what is obvious to you may not be obvious to someone else. (Otherwise Hillary Clinton would be president of the U.S.) We all draw connections between facts and events based on our own beliefs and experiences. Therefore articles require reliably sourced opinions that draw the connections that you make automatically. Brimelow for example was also an editor at Barron's and Fortune, although the articles about them do not say they are white supremacist publications. TFD (talk) 17:31, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Buffs, I apologize if my comment came across as a misrepresentation of your position. Since you invoked the fraction of the intro and the article that was negative/critical as the reason it fails to be NPOV (When 3/4 ... is highly critical/negative, it seems to clearly fail), I took you to mean that you would take a more evenly split ratio as an improvement. It is possible that I have seen that argument made too many times, and so I am primed to see it, if you get my meaning. Cheers, XOR'easter (talk) 17:20, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough Buffs (talk) 18:36, 18 October 2019 (UTC)