Jump to content

Talk:FrontPage Magazine/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Page Needs Attention

This page reads like an advertisement for its topic. skywriter 15:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How so? It seems an accurate description and I dont see anything that could be considered as too biased towards FrontPageMag DarthJesus 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Blog

This web site is a blog. Though calling itself "magazine" it does not produce a dead tree edition and its entries are blogged. Skywriter 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many exclusively online magazines, FPM is not a blog. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I strongly object to this deletion

I strongly object to this deletion request.[1] I think this article should be kept. Travb (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be kept? -Will Beback · † · 04:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Needs some sources. [2] is a good start. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Will Beback, thanks for asking. I think this webpage is notable enough:
  • frontpagemag has 871,000 hits on google.[3]
  • 15 hits on google news[4]
  • 106 hits on google print [5]
  • 324 hits on LexisNexis (database of magazines and newspapers)
I will add Night Gyr source to this article.
Hope this clarifies my vague statment. Travb (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. -Will Beback · † · 07:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm still not convinced that the article passes WP:SPAM or WP:WEB, although I agree with GabrielF that AfD is more appropriate for this article than the prod process. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen frontpagemag used as a source in many WP articles, and it appears to pass WP:RS for that use. Just my two cents. - Crockspot 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What articles cite it? It is very questionable under WP:RS; see the section that states:
By many definitons, frontpagemag is affiliated with an extremist or extremely partisan organization. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh, for crying out loud. There aren't supposed to be Wikipedia articles on partisan organizations? Don't confuse WP:RS with WP:N, and for the latter see [6]. Compare [7]. This article is a stub, but so what? Andyvphil 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Past arguments:

  • There are over 50 discrete articles on wikipedia linking to the page in question, with further supports usefulness, if not notability per se.
  • Over 1 million google hits [8] when excluding the domain name variations.
  • Mentions in other outlets as a leading source for its associated political group [9]
  • In fact, the bourgeois revolution has been joined by such prominent neocon institutions as National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, Frontpagemag.com...[10] Lew Rockwell
  • Past AfD[11].

Please let me know if I should invite some of those folks to the discussion, perhaps they can elaborate on what convinced them to keep on the last AfD. --NuclearZer0 13:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Frontpage--a mere ezine?

Frontpage is just one more rightwing, apologetic Zionist ezine that claims, probably correctly, having been visited by 1.5 million readers--without disclosing whether or not such readers were referred by rightwing, religious Zionist ezines (e.g. Arutz Sheva) and the like.

It’s editor, David Horowitz, is just one more windbag that has changed political affiliation when expedient with his own political agenda and purse. To claim that Frontpage is merely an online “political magazine” is obfuscating its extremist, partisan and religious sources—one might as well claim that Streicher’s "Der Stürmer" was merely a German weekly. The present entry on Frontpage is a pr placement at best, at worst it is an utterly delusional falsification of facts.

divinus divinum divinat (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 07:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

Restored section

I restored: FrontPageMag editors, columnists, and contributors. No policy was mentioned in its removal. I always edit from the standpoint that more information in an article is better than less. Especially a section this interesting. Travb (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Article name, again

As user:Andyvphil noted in an edit summary, this organisation has a web page at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Contact/Contact.asp in which they give their name as "FrontPage Magazine". Sigh. On the other hand, the banner at the top of that very same page says "FRONTPAGEMAG.COM". Deeper sigh. So I reluctantly suggest that the article should be renamed to "FrontPage magazine" (without the ".com" suffix) and should begin something like this:

FrontPage magazine (also known as FRONTPAGEMAG.COM) is an online ...

where I've used <small> on the alternate title. What do other editors think? CWC(talk) 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and changed the first sentence as suggested, except capitalizing the "M". See my comment on the proposed move, however. Andyvphil 09:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED to FrontPage Magazine, per discussion below. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

FrontPage magazine.com → Front Page Magazine – This title sounds better, and makes more sense logically. It is also the official company name.--Sefringle 03:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' or other opinion in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support. More logical, easier to understand, easier to wikilink to. CWC(talk) 05:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC) Retracted after seeing Andyvphil's comment below. Really-deep-sigh. CWC(talk) 09:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Another wrong move, I'm afraid, though maybe inadvertently. Sefringle and CWC are not in agreement: I've never seen a space between "Front" and "Page". Indeed, the David Horowitz Freedom Center Year End Report (2006) goes so far as to refer to "Our website Frontpage"[12]. It is "FrontPage Magazine" (no space, no ".com", capital "P", capital "M") here [13] and that's what looks right to me. Andyvphil 09:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC) ...and notice the byline, here: [14]. Chris, if you think this kerfuffle is something, consider Discover The Networks, long since changed from Discover the Network, but still called that in the logo main list of "Ongoing Programs"(!)[15] at DHFC. Both names work as urls and the long-obsolete one gets most of the hits. Andyvphil 10:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment So would you support calling it FrontPage Magazine or Frontpage Magazine instead?--Sefringle 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment I think that "FrontPage Magazine" is the right name. CWC(talk) 04:25, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment Exactly. "FrontPage Magazine" (no space, no ".com", capital "P", capital "M") Andyvphil 13:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments

  • In response to Andyvphil's comment of 10:23, 19 February 2007 (UTC): if they can't get their own names right, how are other people supposed to ((... rambling rant redacted ...)) ((expletives excised)). Bah!
    Thanks for the info, Andyvphil, and your work on this article. CWC(talk) 13:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Website outage

The http://www.frontpagemag.com/ domain is working again, so I've edited the article to remove our coverage of the outage. For interest, I've copied it here.

At the end of the lede section, we had:

On April 27, 2007, the ninth anniversary of its launch, the site went down, apparently due to a failure to extend its Domain Name Registration. See External Links.

The "External links" section was:

down Friday April 27, 2007 to date (last checked, Monday April 31) due to "technical difficulties". Instead use www.frontpagemagazine.com.[16] Note that April 27 is the anniversary of the launch date -- it seems that the domain name registration may have been, for some reason, not renewed.[17]

I've added http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/ as an external link with the description "Alternate name for the same website", just in case.

Cheers, CWC 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Arman vs Poole

I've moved the following paragraph from the article to here for discussion. It was the entire content of the "Criticism" section.

Abukar Arman has criticized the publication as "Islamophobic" and a "pseudo news outlet," condemning them for "hyperbolic" arguments and "paranoia-driven logic" writing, "FrontPage Magazine has dedicated three or so articles aimed to smear this writer and activist's name, along with other Muslims of good community standing. All three vicious diatribes were authored by the same man, Patrick Poole - an obscure character who apparently specializes in maligning Muslims and Islamic organizations."<ref>Abukar Arman (July 19, 2007). "Islamophobia and the specter of neo-McCarthyism". Middle East Times. Retrieved 2007-07-27.</ref> <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29250</ref>

This appears to be a spat between Patrick Poole ("an author and public policy researcher"[18]) and Abukar Arman ("a Freelance Writer who lives in Ohio, USA"). Arman's attack seems to be aimed primarily at Poole, not FPM. Moreover, his attack seems to be a routine call-them-Islamaphobes smear job. ISTM that this conflict is not relevant to this article.

I'm sure there is plenty of room for substantive criticism of FPM, but I cannot recall seeing any. If anyone finds some, please add it to the article. Cheers, CWC 07:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: The redlink to Patrick Poole had two refs attached: <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=3597</ref> and <ref>http://patrickpoole.blogspot.com/</ref>. I've moved them here for future ...er... reference. CWC 07:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems there was a brief edit war over this and it ended up restored. I mostly agree with CWC as to the actual meaningfulness of the crit (although I would keep the Poole refs), but don't mind leaving it in... Andyvphil 22:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sources discusssion

There is a discussion whether Front Page is a Wikipedia reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#FrontPage Magazine .28again.29. Perhaps people familiar with this topic would be able to contribute useful information, although for some reason notification such as this has not been done. (SEWilco 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

Man of the Year

Without some sort of introduction or alleged controversy, why are only the 2007 & 2003 "Man (persons) of the Year" listed? I suggest either including all of the FPM Men of the Year, or remove the section entirely. Biccat (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

  • "WHOIS_Frontpagemagazine.com" :
    • [http://www.whois-search.com/whois/frontpagemagazine.com Front Page Magazine]- [[WHOIS]] frontpagemagazine.com information
    • [http://www.whois-search.com/whois/frontpagemagazine.com Front Page Magazine]- [[WHOIS]] information

DumZiBoT (talk) 04:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

LTC Allen West Entry

I've corrected a couple of mistakes about the 2003 Man of the Year, LTC Allen West, that appeared in the original article written about him. Updated the unit he commanded: it was the 2nd Battalion of the 4th Field Artillery Regiment, not the other way around. More importantly, the original article on him in FrontPage.Com, and repeated here, implied that West had retired at a lower rank than he was as part of his punishment. He retired as a Lieutenant Colonel because that was what he was. He was not a "Colonel" before the Article 32 legal proceedings that resulted in his fine. I think the author(s) may be unaware that the title "Colonel" is used when speaking to or refering to a Lieutenant Colonel casually. However, more likely, it would seem that the original author(s) are trying to make some sort of political comment by incorrectly implying that West had been "demoted". 81.106.185.70 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)Maj Kev81.106.185.70 (talk) 22:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Focus Section

This section has no references so i have moved it here till some are found mark nutley (talk) 11:47, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Focus

FrontPage Magazine's main focus is on issues pertaining to foreign policy, war, and Islamic terrorism. It regularly condemns official enemies of the U.S. and Israel, and is a strong proponent of the war on terror, the Iraq War, and Israel's military actions. [citation needed]

It has also published articles condemning what it perceives as left-wing organizations and causes, such as the Democratic party, political correctness within the media, the environmental movement, affirmative action, reparations for slavery, left-wing interpretations of feminism, Islamism, socialism, communism, anarchism, anti-war groups, the United Nations, and other matters.[citation needed]

Deleted material

this material was deleted with the edit summary: material which seems to be negative and poorly sourced about living persons removed per WP:BLP[19]

  • On October 10, 2006, Media Matters published an article whose title asserted "Horowitz, FrontPageMag misrepresented CREW statement on Foley emails to suggest 'obstruction of justice'."[1] Rep. Mark Foley had sent arguably inappropriate emails to an underage Congressional page (more explicit propositions to others came out later) and, after ABC News broke the story on September 28 based on other information, the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington criticized the FBI, saying that they had both received and turned the suspicious emails over to the FBI in July. According to the Washington Post, "Law enforcement officials said then that the e-mails did not provide enough evidence of a possible crime to warrant a full investigation", that "unidentified Justice and FBI officials told reporters that the e-mails provided by CREW were heavily redacted" and that "the FBI believed that CREW may have received the e-mails as early as April".[2]
  1. ^ "Horowitz, FrontPageMag misrepresented CREW statement on Foley emails to suggest "obstruction of justice"". Media Matters for America. 2006-10-10. Retrieved 2007-09-18.
  2. ^ Eggen, Dan. "Watchdog Group Disputes FBI's Claims on E-Mails". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2010-05-03.

The Washington Post is an excellent source for most assertions. Could the editor please explain the problem with the sourcing?   Will Beback  talk  22:47, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

More details?

When was the magazine founded? Where does it receive funding? These are both facts which should be included in the article if known. V. Joe (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


Both very good points. I would also like to see updated numbers on viewers per month. The half million per month sited is dated to 2006 which is seriously out of date. The main problem I see with tracking funding sources is FPM doesn't seem like a very open organization when it comes to revenue sources but it is worth looking into. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.66.10.215 (talk) 00:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

"FPM Man of the Year" - how is this notable?

Seems like pretty trivial information to me. 75.76.213.161 (talk) 07:42, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on FrontPage Magazine. 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • 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.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:11, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Merge?

There isn't really any relevant information here. It seems to me that it could be merged with David Horowitz Freedom Center. --OpenFuture (talk) 08:12, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Please review the 2 prior AFD pages. They resulted in solid Keep decisions. – Lionel (talk) 08:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I'm not doubting it's notability, I'm doubting that it needs to be a separate article, since the article, after 8 years of existence, still contains almost no information of value. --OpenFuture (talk) 09:00, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, while I didn't vote, I agree with the editors at the AFDs that this should be a standalone article--in spite of the article being short.– Lionel (talk) 09:11, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Five years later there is still minimal sources but I added a few. I now lean toward "keep." Most of the primary material has been removed. See what you guys think, if you are still around. Jason from nyc (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Editorial

Is this an editorial article from Wikipedia about Islamophobic organisations? If it isn't, then I suggest that the quite damning and biased setion "Part of a series on Islamophobia" is removed from the article. It is not the role of Wikipedia to be the arbiter of what is or isn't Islamophobic. It should of course be noted that there are different documentable opinions about it, but a whole section damning the organisation as "Islamophobic" reveals a terrible bias that says way more about Wikipedia than the organisation it writes about. As such, the least that should be done to this article is to affix a sign to it that clearly explains that this article is highly contested, and needs editing for extreme bias. However the best thing would be to remove the damning section entirely. Such bias does not befit an organisation so committed to sharing all views on the matter, and treating them equally. In turn, this is why Wikipedia as a whole has lost a lot of its former legitimacy over the years. That is exactly why such complaints need to be taken seriously, and why the article must in the least include a warning about bias. --Kebman (talk) 12:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

"Don't be silly" isn't an argument. Judging from how my suggestions for the main article on Islamophobia was "reverted", i.e. censored, it is pretty clear what some Wikipedians think about having an honest and open discussion about what can be done to make Wikipedia articles less biased. It proves how Wikipedia is ruled by consensus no more, and how it's been taken over by an authoritarian and agenda-drive mafia who would rather revert, i.e. censor, than discuss serious criticism openly. --Kebman (talk) 10:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Sources are Huff Po and Buzzfeed OMFG — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:243:CC01:62E0:119E:2C2D:2DE2:CECE (talk) 07:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)
Sources now include the high-quality academic publications Ethnic and Racial Studies and American Ethnologist. — Newslinger talk 06:13, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

There are exactly five sentences in this article. We should all be eternally grateful that two of those sentences (40%) are (almost) exactly the same — "The website has been described by scholars and writers as right-wing, far-right, and Islamophobic" and "The website has been described by scholars and writers as right-wing, far-right, Islamophobic, and anti-Islam" — just so every reader knows, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that no attention whatsoever should be paid to this ghastly website that does not follow the Politically Correct opinions of the East Coast élites…

In fact, wouldn't it be a good idea to repeat the sentence a third time in order to lengthen the article (we could add a Criticism subhead along with the words (now 50% of the article!) "The website has been described by scholars and writers as right-wing, far-right, and Islamophobic"), all the while making sure that everyone really does get the message? Asteriks (talk) 00:40, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:LEAD explains why, —PaleoNeonate – 15:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:FrontPage_Magazine/Archive_1&oldid=1174853148"