Talk:The Gateway Pundit

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.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: Should this article describe The Gateway Pundit as a fake news website?

A1: Yes, the "fake news website" descriptor is amply and reliably sourced.

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 30 days

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.

Politics

	Politics portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article.

Blogging (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging

United States

	United States portal 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. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Conservatism

	Conservatism portal 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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

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.

Failing? And Supreme Court decision

See [1]. Doug Weller talk 07:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bull Pucky

The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right fake news website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories. 68.229.190.208 (talk) 22:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed. That's what reliable sources say. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 23:15, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the thread suggests that you want to include "bull pucky" to the list of things GP publishes. That would be true but redundant, unencyclopedic, and unsourced. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate/redundant sections

There is a section under History on "2020 election lawsuits." And there is a section under False Stories on "2020 election." Now I have added a paragraph on Hoft's admission/apology under "2020 election lawsuits." But it seems like these two sections are duplicating. Maybe History and False Stories sections should be merged and made chronological. — goethean 15:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia should be objective

Starting the article with the sentences "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right fake news website. The website is known for publishing falsehoods, hoaxes, and conspiracy theories," is not an objective statement. More objective would be: "The Gateway Pundit (TGP) is an American far-right news website considered by some as having controversial content. Readers of traditional media may consider TGP as publisher of fake news, including hoaxes, falsehoods and conspiracy theories. However, some readers of TGP consider its content more reliable than that of the mainstream news." 97.73.100.23 (talk) 03:51, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — Newslinger talk 03:57, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

considered by some as having controversial content Why not "allegedly considered by some as having what some sources call controversial content"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:16, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some readers believe the Earth is flat. It isn't. O3000, Ret. (talk) 20:49, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]