The
contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been
designated as a contentious topic.
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
The Gateway Pundit article. This is
not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
While the biographies of living persons policy does not apply directly to the subject of this article, it may contain material that relates to living persons, such as friends and family of persons no longer living, or living persons involved in the subject matter. Unsourced or
poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately. If such material is re-inserted repeatedly, or if there are other concerns related to this policy, please see
this noticeboard.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of
WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
Hanna Kozlowska (4 April 2018).
"Facebook has introduced another half-baked effort to fight fake news".
Quartz. Archived from
the original on 4 April 2018. Retrieved 4 April 2018. It's also unclear which outlets get the "i" icon, and which do not. For example, InfoWars, a media company that is a well-known purveyor of conspiracy theories, does not appear to have the icon on its posts. That means the user would have to leave Facebook to determine the source's trustworthiness, which defeats the purpose of the feature. Other right-wing conspiracy sites, like Gateway Pundit, also do not have an "i" icon. Both of these sites have Wikipedia pages.
Why are you deleting updates
Why are bots deleting updates of Gateway Pundits. Are they hiding the truth, ranked 750 in all USA websites.
2603:7000:C400:EDD:35F7:D1:F77A:6D07 (
talk) 00:47, 4 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Which updates are missing from this article? — Newslingertalk 04:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)reply
Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2023
Not useful
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The Gateway Pundit is not a "satirical ", nor a "conspiracy " site. The description given by the far-left editors at Wikipedia falsely state this to try and discredit a news site that links articles Wikipedia does not like. Please remove your personal and editorial bias.
2600:1004:B300:557:7CD3:1D28:C9C0:1A62 (
talk) 02:38, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
Not done: The article does not use the word "satirical" even once. What it does do, however, is describe the website as far-right (a statement backed by fifteen sources), a fake news website (a statement backed by ten sources), and being known for publishing conspiracy theories (again, backed by nine sources). These are far more than adequately sourced. I would additionally note that attempting to baselessly attack the same people you are trying to convince is not generally an effective way to make a request.
Tollens (
talk) 03:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)reply
15 actual fake news websites calling one site they all hate a fake news, far right site doesn't make it true. For that matter, Wikipedia is a far left, fake news website because you can find multiple other sites saying such.
38.53.166.241 (
talk) 02:41, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
It really comes down to how credible and established the sources are. Included in the citations are peer reviewed journals and think tanks and large organizations, it's not just fifteen low-credibility bloggers. And yes, while Wikipedia does have a bias problem (because we're all human), there are measures it takes to try to guard it from getting out of hand.
Some of the stuff the Pundit has published is outright fake, or extremist conspiracy theories. Since there is evidence of such, an editor wrote it. I don't know who wrote that specifically, or what their true intentions were, but they have solid backing behind them.
These are just my two cents on the topic as an outsider on this.
EatingCarBatteries (
talk) 04:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)reply
You used CNN as a source which is way far left. How many times have they been sued for falsifying stories (conspiracy theories?). They are not credible and their sources are bought and paid for by big media and you know it. I don't even like gateway pundit but your bias shows. Do better and be better. Don't be part of the problem.
198.28.13.34 (
talk) 16:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Yeah. You don't like our policy on sources, go somewhere else, don't complain on a mainstream site that doesn't buy into your nonsense. Far left is revolutionary, CNN is anything but that. Of course you may think Nazis are far left.
Doug Wellertalk 18:19, 17 April 2024 (UTC)reply
Calling out media bias
No longer relevant to this article. Now just troll bait.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
why is it Wikipedia can call Fox,Newsmax and others right to far right biased media, but wont call out CNN,MSNBC many others as being left to far left media when it is clear of the bias that they have. They try to hide behind the notion that its disinformation, but in reality they just only air news that they consider as being what they consider as fact or they don't report it at all. The main stream media has reported just as many false claims as any other but they dont admit to it . Russian collusion,Hunters laptop and several others come to mind.
Tmlowe65 (
talk) 14:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
the way MSM reported on Russia and the laptop has been misrepresented by sources like Gateway Pundit
soibangla (
talk) 17:38, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
I have watched a read a lot of Msnbc an other main stream media news ,they either don't say anything or they just state what the white house response is. Many of the host state their opinions that are very left biased.
Tmlowe65 (
talk) 15:06, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Tell that to the news media. I just made a statement on what is or isn't stated in wikipedia.
47.4.72.120 (
talk) 15:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
You made a statement about what you think is true. It's an opinion. And frankly a rather absurd one, IMO. We use
reliable secondary sources, numerous of which are included in this article. You have provided no sources. And this should be closed as it has nothing to do with this article.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 16:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
Where does Wikipedia call Fox right or far right? I can't find that. Also, Wikipedia does not call Newsmax right or right-wing. WP says it has been variously described as conservative, right-wing, and far-right with numerous citations.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 17:49, 17 February 2024 (UTC)reply
They use the term "conservative" for Fox and use term "described as ,right to far right" for Newsmax , but for CNN an MSNBC ,they just say " American news organization and political commentary...
if you scroll down in controversies on CNN they have been only accused of being left biased.
Tmlowe65 (
talk) 14:56, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
We say what reliable sources say. We do not evaluate ourselves. And this has nothing to do with the subject of this article.
O3000, Ret. (
talk) 15:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)reply
