Talk:HuffPost

Why is this article allowed and not considered a "Corporation" it is completely self-promoting. Wikipedia should be consistent in its policies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.214.251.106 (talk) 20:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

AHEM!

Was this written by Huffington herself??!! I'm a big fan but it's WAY too biased, especially the references to the Drudge report and other left wing blogs:

"...the HuffPost regularly publishes scoops of current news stories, otherwise providing links to selected prominent news stories, providing a left-of-center counterpoint to the link-heavy style of The Drudge Report. Compared to other left-wing blogs such as the expertise-heavy Znet or the long-established Daily Kos, the HuffPost draws a balance between hard news commentary and coverage..."

-This is ridiculous and displays the major drawback of Wikipedia... --ALEXXXTH 1150GMT 1st March 2007

I came to this talk page after getting a bad taste in my mouth looking at the tone of this HuffPo advertisement masquerading as an "encyclopedic" treatment. As for "major drawback of Wikipedia," the "major drawback" is the abject dishonesty, insipid propagandist methodology, and quashing of open debate and actual page development -- and 99 percent of these shortcomings are due to the leftist and liberal gargoyles who hang here night and day. Doubtless my honest opinion will be removed from these very discussion pages (it invariably happens that anyone who doesn't act like a liberal lickspittle gets their every utterance banished from any Wikipedia comment pages) and doubtless I will be "warned" on my own talk-page by some creepy and cloyingly condescending wannabe King of the Wikilawyers / wannabe Editor-in-Chief liberal twit who will farcically admonish me to "show good faith to your fellow Wiki editors" while they come back here to further "refine" this laughable article to gush even more about what a downright fantastic and objective journalistic establishment is the wonderful ol' HuffPo. But yeah, this article reeks of the usual Wikipedia liberal slant.YosemiteFudd (talk) 00:40, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

The fact that this celebrity drivel is called a news site at all shows it is biased. What crap.

Turlington

Hello? Why isn't Christy Turlington's name listed as one of the bloggers?!

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."

HUFFPO is liberal?

It's pretty obvious from reading any article on the website that Huffington Post is an extreme right-wing publication. Huffington herself consistently expresses conservative opinions. Just because HUFFPO isn't as arch-conservative as the likes of Drudge or Rush doesn't make HUFFPO liberal. I am a liberal and am frequently offended by the conservative views expressed on the Huffington website. Whoever thinks of HUFFPO as liberal must be conservative to the point of fascist. -24.144.61.80 (talk) 09:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Your view of the political spectrum must be completely messed up, either that you are are liberal to the point of being communist to think that this is a right wing website. Center Left is a very moderate way of putting the Huffington Post's political leaning, although the president has said that it is where any american citizen who wants balanced news to go to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.163.118 (talk) 19:05, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

to unsigned first comment. I think you need to do some more research on the political spectrum. Conservative and fascist ideas are in no way similar. In fact they tend to be on the opposite ends of the spectrum.. For example, the main platform for Conservatives is LESS government and regulation. While Fascist CONTROL industry and commerce. From where do you get your information? Paragoalie (talk) 14:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Conservatism and Fascism are both on the right side of the left-right political spectrum and this has been accepted by historians and scholars for over half a century, the difference between them however is that Fascism is an extremist ideology and Conservatism is not. They are however different when it comes to economy, as Fascism tends toward the center of the spectrum, they are similar when it comes to their attitude towards corporatism though(Negativity towards unions, strikes and that sort of thing). Anyway back when Fascism as an ideology was actually relevant and controlling Europe left wing politics and right wing politics were very much different from what they are today. Atheuz (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

It is pointless and meaningless to assign an ideological label to a website that publishes a multitude of opinions and authors. But that won't stop people from doing so. Dlabtot (talk) 01:53, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed nonproductive/inflammatory comment by User:Varlaam on 02:07, 9 July 2011 (UTC) Buffs (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

What an intelligent, non biased opinion. It's nice to see people who don't stereotype an entire political party.64.213.221.84 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I don't see what the controversy is. The Huffington Post has a definite slant to the left, just as Business Insider has a definite slant to the right. I don't see what harm is done in pointing this out. Bias is omnipresent. I think the articles themselves should indicate observed trends in bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.217.156 (talk) 19:28, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

"aggregated"

What's an "aggregated blog" ? Following the link to "blog", i can't find an occurrence of "aggregat". --Jerome Potts (talk) 23:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It means that they don't write most of their own news stories. They link to other news organizations such as a newspaper's website and copy/summarize the article on their site 97.91.171.122 (talk) 04:36, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nicknames

"huffpo" and "huffpost" are sourced to blogs, one of which is credited to her here, but which says its not associated with the journal, but is a fan blog. this is not a reliable source, so i have removed the alternate names. get me a NYT, newsweek, times of london quote showing this.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the Huffington Post is stratling the fence between progressive and regressive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.124.169.74 (talk) 16:43, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Why can't I revert this edit?

This the edit I am trying to revert: "16:28, 30 October 2010 69.140.254.70 (talk) (14,778 bytes) (→Innovation: Sounds like an advert for Yahoo.) (undo) (Tag: section blanking)"

it says it sounds like an advert for Yahoo, but does not mention an advert for Facebook?? Ottawahitech (talk) 12:12, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I have had to re-revert this for the second time: why is my edit being removed? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Huffington_Post&action=historysubmit&diff=397991701&oldid=397564190 Ottawahitech (talk) 03:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

References and Citing

Is the Huffington Post considered to be an adequate reference for citation/facts on other wikipedia articles. I hear the liberal blog arguments from people, but it is a seriously funded website with a variety or professional paid writers. Is there an official ruling on this, as wp:v seems to be the only cirteria for a reference.Bluebadger1 (talk) 23:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

It depend on the context what your using from it. They host Associated press article which almost always meet WP:V. Thier own Reporting (Like Jason Linkins who is a journalist for Huffpo) is considered reliable for 99% of the time. But then they host alot of "blogs" by notable people Like Robert Redford and Al Gore they are Considered WP:SPS and are not reliable for things outside the author opinion and can be used extremely limited circumstances. Then just plain old blogs which are almost never considered reliable. In the Future Review old discussions at WP:RSN as this is not the proper venue to ask such questions The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Much appreciated. Bluebadger1 (talk) 02:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

HuffPost .ca

It's launched --KpoT (talk) 20:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Strike

This matter requires further elaboration. Varlaam (talk) 01:38, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

It certainly does. In casual daily web browsing over the last year I've encountered many stories about disenfranchised HP bloggers, but this wiki article merely cites specific incidents of dissent - not the context and stated reasons for the dissent. Such an omission is weaselly IMO, because it allows the article to appear comprehensive, whilst depriving the reader of crucial, relevant facts that explain why these actions have taken place. Wormald (talk) 14:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC)