Talk:The Huffington Post
|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Huffington Post article.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|Threads older than 30 days may be archived by.|
Launch of "The HuffPost Show"
Just saw on CNN that HuffPost announced that its launching "a primetime political comedy program" featuring satire. The article speculates on the timing given Jon Stewart's recent announcement of his retirement, but this new development could be relevant for the page if anyone would care to take a stab at it.
rewrite part of the introduction
Removing the following line from the introduction. Apart from the obvious spelling error, it sounds (negatively)biased and may be rewritten based on proper facts instead of personal viewpoints:
"Extrmely biased website. Very effective at spinning the news to inaccurately support the statist agenda: big government, less freedom, shredding of the Constitution."
Stating the obvious
HuffPo is a liberal/progressive/left website. There really is no argument against this fact. It is a pretty big diservice to not make a note of this idological bias within the article somewhere. Arzel (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- It's generally better not to spoon-feed opinion to the reader, especially in the lede. They're fully capable of making up their own minds. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
- Arzel cited to Politico and you reverted without any reference to Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing. What you've just said here is, in fact, opinion. At issue is what the facts are here concerning HuffPo's lean and why you would rather that readers not have this information which they could use to "make up their own minds" (having seen the cited sources they can review those sources). Arianna doesn't wanted HuffPo tagged. Fair enough. We can quote her on that. But WP:NPOV means that we do not simply line up with her POV if there are reliable sources suggesting otherwise.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
This site is rabidly propagandist. Comments undergo intense censorship. Even after being approved in pending mode, published comments can be wiped out en masse by fiat if they present too strong an argument against the site's view. Ad-hoc censorship abounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calhounite (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Calhounite (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you have something to say that will improve the article, feel free to discuss it here. Adding your unsourced opinions would not improve the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
I feel time has eroded the bragadocious claim "It has an active community, with over one million comments made on the site each month". There has been a huge exodus during the last two years (starting Dec 2011) when HP introduced new comment format. December 2013 sw the introduction of "validation" of your comment entries by verifying your identity through Facebook sign-up on HP. A very large percentile chose to delete accounts after that. There is no way the site has one million comments per month anymore.Ipsofactory (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
- That the Huffington Post engages in rabid censorship does not register as opinion but as fact. The nature of the censorship registers as opinion, opinion widely discussed on the net. for example "The Toxic Censorship at the Huffington Post", an article that can be found on the Salon site. Not all truths neccessarily incline themselves to standards of verifiability. The Huffington Post is what it is. A rabid practicioner of old Soviet style censorship. A truth so obvious and blatant, it's not worth the effort. The article as written gives the impression that the Huffington Post site is a professional news organization site, neither left or right leaning. Nothing could be further from the truth. While it is idealogically biased, what it is mostly is an anti-American brainwashing rag. The reader leaves misinformed and a victim of spin if he/she is not at least allowed to know about its commenting policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calhounite (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
They are not left or liberal. They are partisan democrat. But yes I agree that it needs to be in the article. I've also been the subject of an edit war recently because I was trying to (correctly) label the website as a tabloid. Some person apparently does not think that's acceptable even though they clearly are. Its not an insult unless you take it that way. Lots of people like reading the celeberity news. That's probably where the majority of their money actually comes from. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- Sources please. Multiple sources if you think a description or viewpoint deserves prominence in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
- "Tabloid" is likely too strong because HuffPo commentators in particular are often relatively sophisticated (albeit left/liberal) and it's not at the level of the National Enquirer. Having said that, they aren't remotely as authoritative a publication overall as, say, The Economist. There's far too much titillation and celebrity gossip for that. I've added "mass market", which is a gentle way of putting it, but there ought to be something, perhaps under "controversies" or criticism, about HuffPo's tendency to sensationalize its headlines.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
- I think it should be mentioned (but not emphasized) that the opinions and editorials tend to be liberal/progressive. But it needs to be carefully worded so as not to compromise Wikipedia's neutrality. Otherwise, the reader can basically make up their own mind. Cadiomals (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
The purpose of an encyclopedis entry is to summarize the facts objectively. How can the reader "make up his own mind" without reading the HP everyday for a few months? If the HP is pro-Democrat, it is sneaky to hide this fact from people reading the wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Howard fineman sensord
Howards statement Mon eve on Msnbc stateing south corolina voters for Newt Gingrich"s are inafective voters and are uneducated ..This is racis .asking for his resignation.From any media reports..Sc needs to rice up againts this kind of view,, Jay Martin
Quote from the current version: "On February 7, 2011, AOL acquired the mass market Huffington Post for US$315 million". Can someone explain "mass market" in this context? It doesn't make sense to me. Neither the linked wiki article nor the reference seem to help. Sergivs-en (talk) 06:08, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- If you will take the trouble to scroll backwards on this page about 4 paragraphs you will find the editor who inserted that explaining exactly why he did so. It's often best to go ahead and look through the existing talk before adding to it.Eaglizard (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Someone messed up...
Malcolm Cowley is not, never was, nor ever will be, an editor for the Huffington Post. The first two (past and present) seems sane at first glance, but you may ask how I can make claims about the future of the authors. It is simple: Malcolm Cowley died in 1989. That's a fair bit before Huffington Post. Or pretty much the internet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:50, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
why no see also section ?
Why is there no See Also section ?
Are we lacking articles on politico, DailyBeast and others?
Please correct this to avert the impression that this is also an advert.
G. Robert Shiplett 19:23, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
Discussion of HuffPo being a reliable source, now on the noticeboard
A discussion is currently underway, the likes of which are used to determine the reliability of the Huffington Post when used as a source for information on Wikipedia, potentially for the foreseeable future. Editors with direct information to contribute are welcome, and encouraged to provide well-reasoned arguments, for or against. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 03:12, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
- Closed. Please continue to address specific issues at the WP:RSN. OliverTwisted (Talk) (Stuff) 01:28, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Tagged as POV
- In all fairness, it is a section on criticisms against the site. Therefore, you should expect that those criticisms would be, well, critical of the subject matter. As of this writing (which is the same as it was when you tagged it), this criticism is a total of 2 sentences (with no less than 4 citations) plus one cited quotation. It would be hard to convince me that that is undue weight. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
Also new "Allegations of Anti-Semitism" section is clearly negatively biased, POV, uncited and improperly formatted.
- That edit was undone less than 24 hours later: . I think we can consider this one resolved. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
I see this has been discussed before, but the comments are a bit dated and I'd like to address some specifics in the article. For example, this is in the second paragraph:
"The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, as a liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report"
- Is there anything to suggest that the Huffington Post has evolved into anything else since its launch? It was launched as such, and is still widely referred to as such.
- Would it be possible to summarize the political views section in the lead, instead of breaking it out in its own section? It's rather short anyway.
- Is there any reason for the phrasing "representatives of the Republican Party" rather than "critics"?
FYI - not that this matters much, but I was referencing some of the phrasing and presentation in the Fox News article for the basis of some of these points. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
The Huffington Post is a far-left piece of shit that bans you and deletes all your posts just for saying that it is impossible for a woman to have a penis, which is a fact BTW.
- Kludt, Tom. "Huffington Post launching political satire show". CNN.