Talk:The Raw Story

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Websites / Computing   
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.


Is there a founder of TRS? Is there an editor-in-chief? QLineOrientalist (talk) 03:24, 13 January 2012 (UTC)


Highly credible and well-sourced? I'm not trolling, I'd feel better with some evidence to back that up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HiS oWn (talkcontribs)

i agree with you. should that statement be removed? User:Anthonymendoza12.203.178.107 13:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)


"Moderate-progressive?", based on the 'journalists' associated with this group, they're definately not moderate. Progressive is a nice squishy label. Removing "moderate". Kyaa the Catlord 12:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Someone needs to put some critisims of this site on this page. The site is a partisan hack job. This page needs to reflect that, especially since all of their "investigations" about the "Plame leak" were disproven. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Gee, numbnuts, maybe you should add the sourced criticisms yourself. It's wiki-friggin-pedia. a n y o n e can add. 06:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Disproven? Here's a hint, by just saying that, twisting reality, doesn't make it so. Stewiegfan 22:31, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Admittedly "progressive". There you have it ladies and gentlemen. See how far the termites have spread...EyePhoenix (talk) 00:29, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

"Broken stories"[edit]

How would we go about verifying this section? Is there any way of knowing retrospectively who first broke a story? Are sources possible? Can we think of a better section title? ("Scoops"?)-Will Beback · · 10:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I dont think there needs to be this section. Is there a broken stories section on the BBC page? Its irrelevant and not verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

First sentence[edit]

First sentence seems to be sourced to an aside made by Howard Kurtz in a rush transcription of a conversation aired in 2005, where he refers to it as "liberal blog RawStory" [sic] Suggest not reliable or NPOV summary, the website's own claim is that it's a "progressive news site that focuses on stories often ignored in the mainstream media." Eversense (talk) 03:08, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Megan Carpentier and the Tax Foundation[edit]

I wonder if, for the purposes of full disclosure of this organization, this article should include (maybe in the criticisms section) something about Megan Carpentier's former lobbying for the Tax Foundation, since her name is listed and this organization is supposed to be leftist/progressive/liberal/whatever. Just wondering what others here think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Just add it. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:37, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Advertising? Money maker?[edit]

How is it financed? Advertising? Is it profitable or does it have a loss? If anybody has time for the research, these are some good questions to have answered. GeorgeLouis (talk) 17:36, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating a section[edit]

there are a couple of sites online(including disqus and reddit boards) where users complain about censorship to express their opposing views on raw story. How would i go about creating a section about comment censorship. Would it go under criticism? (talk) 07:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't usually have criticism sections (see: WP:CSECTION). You should begin with one or more reliable sources (i.e.; not forums or websites like disqus & reddit) which cover the subject, then convey what those reliable sources say in your own words here. What section to put the content in (or what new section to create, if needed) often becomes evident or obvious once that content is created. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:03, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Raw Story. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:11, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard[edit]

FYI, there is a pending question that may interest both friends and foes of this article or its subject matter. Join the discussion here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2016 (UTC)