Talk:The Gateway Pundit

I don't know
I don't know about this... it seems like just another "here's a group whose political view we dislike" article, which will quickly be forgotten or deprecated. In addition: I don't like this much. Sorry.--talk 12:39, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It's already becoming a listicle, the laziest possible article that virtually no one will read. Lists are easy to write, hard to parse, and generally a bad way to do business.
 * It uses a few selected comments as evidence of, um, something. That whole section should probably go, because selected comments are extremely prone to cherry-picking and sharpshooting biases.
 * Again, these guys are global warming denilists and are promoting myths and conspiracy theories. If it's in list form it's because all of these blogs do the same thing over and over again, making it a pain to actually go into detail every time. You can go into more detail if you'd like. ClothCoat (talk) 17:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I wonder if there's a better way we can handle stuff like this. If there exist a bunch of websites, blogs, TV shows, etc. that espouse the same basic views, would it be better to lump them into a few broader (and more general) articles? For example, the Fox News programs that espouse these views could probably all be summarized succinctly in a section of the Fox News article, perhaps with a list of "offending" programs. - GrantC (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure that could work. I'm getting tired of repeating articles over and over, that's why it might be getting lazier. We could put these all under "radical right blogs" or something like that, and have a brief description of each. ClothCoat (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Right, that's more or less my thought. We should have dedicated articles for individuals who are particularly crazy (on both the left and right), but as you say, most of these points are common to a bunch of places. - GrantC (talk) 18:10, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed. That's why you use a page like global warming denial to describe the general trend and provide some examples, and you use individual pages to describe any specific woomeisters who are worthy of note.--[[Image:adsig.png|25px|link=User:AD|AD]]talk 19:48, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The only advantage I see to an individual article is that when people look up the site (for whatever reason) they can see that it promotes woo since this page would come up as well, which would be helpful to our mission. Other than that I don't see an issue with creating one page for a lot of these nutty sites, (it's just a pain to create an article for each individual unless people were willing to help me do it). ClothCoat (talk) 19:54, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I think redirects would accomplish that problem just fine (e.g. a show on Fox News could redirect to the Fox News article). - GrantC (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I meant on Google or Yahoo search engines. Is there anything we could do for that?ClothCoat (talk) 01:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Even if we had the individual pages there, I'm doubtful that we could drive enough traffic there for the search rankings to be anything decent. That may just be the pessimist in me though. - GrantC (talk) 01:07, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually for the less popular blogs, like Moonbattery and liberal logic 101, we're the second or third search result. But yeh, for townhall or more popular right-wing sites we're back a few pages. Tomorrow I'll start to list all the sites that do this stuff on this talk page. Then we can decide if it's worth putting under a single page or not, because their are SO MANY of these blogs that just repeat each other it's amazing and difficult to document each one. Maybe we should make the page for the less popular sites (RenewAmerica, moonbattery, etc) but keep individual pages for more popular sites (townhall)ClothCoat (talk) 04:27, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

A year down the road, and it is the fourth result on the first page. Maybe google thinks it's showing me what I want to see, IDK. Someone on a forum called out a wingnut for using WND and Gateway Pundit as backup. I hadn't seen this one before, so I went looking. Thanks Obama RationalWiki! Flux gate gamma (talk) 20:55, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
 * You're welcome good sir. Though I feel bad for not listing all those websites like I said I would but, in my defense, I forgot. That's a good excuse right? ClothCoat (talk) 07:41, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

They have recently been on a #LoveWins shaming spree
I came across them by accident and found that they apparently have a very weird ass way of looking progressive. Basically, they seem to be blaming the Supreme Court for killing gays in the middle east as ISIS has "responded" to the marriage decision by throwing gays off roofs and killing them. I'm not sure what kind of fallacy that is, but it seems pretty crude to blame the actions of a bunch of radical assholes who were going to do that anyway on the attempts of the Supreme Court to give people the same rights as anyone else. Also, a lot of the old fashioned attempts at making me feel sorry for bigots who won't sell cakes to gay people for their weddings.

May I suggest you guys consider expanding this section with some of their more prevalent complaints. Specifically the ones that try to make you feel bad for assholes? I think pointing out their cherry picking tactics and why assholes being told they can't be assholes anymore isn't bad would be welcome. After all, if this was the sixties, they'd probably be complaining about how restaurant owners can't refuse service to African-Americans. It wouldn't take much to switch the quotes around really. Just replace Gay Couples with Inter-Racial.

Also, keep up the good work overall. You guys are alright. 00:58, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Protesters with DYNAMITE!!!
https://twitter.com/KrangTNelson/status/871543265769783298 02:28, 21 September 2017 (UTC)