Talk:HuffPost/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Bloggers

Huffinton Post has taken now to tossing off people randomly who do not fit their idea of a "blogger". The end line when you attempt to share is "You have been banned". Thanks HuffPO for nadaLjsfolly (talk) 20:27, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I think the table misses the point-- all their bloggers are celebs to some degree.

And I do't like how it looks. --robotwisdom 20:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly argue that it looks like crap right now, and your point about the celebrity of the bloggers is too relative to matter. If that's the problem, then I would suggest changing the header instead of destroying it. If not the tables, then you find some way to make this page look presentable.--TheGrza 20:24, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks better without the tables, and makes more sense without them too. I don't think it's so easy to make a divide between 'celebrity' and 'non-celebrity'. Are most of the "non-celebrities" actually likely to have articles about them anytime soon? I would suggest we don't need to list them at all, it would be simpler to put "There are also many less well known personalities contributing to the Huffington Post" (or something better worded). I think it's more important to have an article saying more about what it is, and what sort of stance it takes, it's noteriety etc than having a list of names. -- Joolz 23:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I do think most of the 'red-link' names will have articles soon, but I haven't heard of most of them.. Nor do I really have a feel for the website as a whole, yet.--robotwisdom 23:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggested Move

If you're not going to put the list of bloggers on another page, maybe we could move it to the bottom? -- (Sander9860 (talk) 05:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC))

Self-Reference

Could you please remove the Wikipedia self-reference from the end of the second paragraph. I would have done it myself but didn't know how to word it. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I added small notations about both people at the bottom of the other pages. I hope to actually write their biographies soon, but it's taken care of now.--TheGrza 00:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Snarky comment

So...where's the article?

All I'm seeing is a list of loosely associated persons. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

We're waiting for you to write it?

My excuse for the long lists is that it's the easiest way to check who already has articles. I suspect the Wiki-correct way to list these names would be to create a category, but that wouldn't help for the names without articles. --robotwisdom 22:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cyrius, therefore I've removed all the non-notables (ie, those without articles) from this page, I've also tried to divide the notables into more managable sections. I don't think that merely contributing to this blog is reason enough for people to have their own articles either. -- Joolz 23:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand-- first, it's a celebrities-only blog, so the red-color-link semi-celebs will all deserve entries sooner or later. Second, as new people post, if I'm going to keep the list updated I still have to check whether they have articles already-- this will be a lot more convenient if the 'red' list is still in the main article. --robotwisdom 23:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be just a list of names, it's not particularly useful to have such a list, these celebrities which thus far haven't got articles aren't really worth listing on here. I don't think that a red-link list should be maintained to make it easier on editors either. -- Joolz 08:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I think the current subject-sort is fine (although it needs an 'activists' category), but when I get the energy I plan to re-add the 'red' names under their appropriate subjects. --robotwisdom 13:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Clooney

Claiming George Clooney as one of the site's celebrity bloggers warrants a big caveat. Really he should be handled separately in the body of the article, as his "blog" led to bit of a dust-up over the practices involved. --Michael Snow 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is outragous a whole mention of the Huffington Report and no mention of the George Clooney scandal? Talk about big brother. Huffingto actually took quotations of past Clooney interview spliced them together and made into a blog. Clearly unethical. And even after being caught she has the brazen gall to state there is nothing wrong with it? Disgusting. What is the point of wikipedia if it is going to be so brazenly biased. Firmitas 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. He's still listed as one of the bloggers for the site, and no mention of the scandal. Not only that, Huffington Post is described as a "news website". That is not accurate! It really does seem like some pro-HP person wrote this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ynot4tony (talk • contribs) 13:46, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Parodies and satires

Can we finally decide whether the parody and satire links need to stay or go?

I say delete--Gdo01 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the person(s) who keeps deleting that section has a non-NPOV agenda of some kind. Note that other pages have similar sections: /Drudge_Report#Parody_sites, /Instapundit#Blogs_inspired_by_Instapundit, etc. etc. etc.

Parody web sites offer nothing. These are totally unnecessary.

Will you be deleting all of the "Parodies and Satires" and similar sections from all of the other entries that have them, including those I listed above? Perhaps we should remove The Colbert Report from the O'Reilly page. Or, perhaps we should realize that this is supposed to be NPOV and thus mention both the supporters and the detractors.

Delete. A parody is an "imitation for comic effect or ridicule". Seems to me this, by definition, violates a neutral point of view. And yes, I would support removing parody references from other articles. If a parody is notable enough, it should have it's own article. Finally, NPOV is not about lining up an equal number of "good" and "bad" statements about a subject--if that's what you've got, all you've done is violated NPOV from different perspectives. Glendoremus 02:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia should not have parody in it but it can have sections on it. 67.173.1.71 (talk) 19:46, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT

Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information....it looks like this article is approaching this quickly. The list of all the contributors is getting pretty long. Perhaps it should be made into another article or List of contributors to the Huffington Post. Afterall, you wouldn't list all the contributors to the NY Times in the NY Times article. --MonkBirdDuke 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I think there needs to be more substantive content in this article. I'm not against the list of contributors per se. Having notable contributors is one of the key, unique elements of the website. I think we could thin out the list by removing those who don't warrant a major wikipedia article. The analogy with the NY Times is not quite apt. The NY Times is not primarily about its contributors. Anyway - I really think there should be some more detail about the site itself. Davidpatrick 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Controversy?

They've posted a lot of crazy stuff on the Huffington Post. I'm suprised that there isn't any controversy over these things. Like 911 Conspiracy crap, Deepak Chopra nonsense, etc. If there's a controversy over these kinds of articles, we have to mention it in the article. --Havermayer 08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I am thinking about adding a section called "comments controversies". A news article on the bomb assasination on the base in Afghanistan where the VP Cheney stayed and one on his poor health had comment sections with loads of death wishes and vile rants. These have been debated not just on the blogosphere but also mainstream media. Recently, comments feature on several Cheney-related articles have been disabled.And another thing - the current article is quite dull and list-like. We need to list ALL columnists and bloggers of HuffPo? Medico80 10:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The controversies are not just in the comments. The pseudoscience, the anti-vaccination and anti-evolution rants etc. are pretty well known amongst scientific bloggers. Warrants a mention, surely?

To see a double-standard, check out the lack of controversy/criticism on the Huffington Post page, then compare it to the excessively nit-picking criticisms on John Gibson's page. C'mon...are we letting Huffington Post and Media Matters dictate Wikipedia standards now?

Either strike the nit-picking from Gibson's page, or allow such nit-picking on this page (and Olbermann's page, and Matthew's, and Media Matters, etc)... Ynot4tony (talk) 13:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It might be an understatement to refer to the comments targeted at Nancy Reagan simply as "negative." That is quite vague, and could refer to anything from disagreeing with her husband's political beliefs to, well, the extremely hateful comments made about wishing her to "croak in the tub," etc. Either some of the comments should be quoted, or their tone should be described more accurately.

It might also be a bad idea for one of the main sources for criticism of the Huffington Post to be the Post itself. We should let Huffington rebut the claim herself, but only after presenting the case of criticism first, from the critical source (O'Reilly) himself.JosCol (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I have followed Huffington Post since the first day they published and have tried making comments about various controversial subjects including the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job. They absolutely won't allow anything mentioned along those lines in their comments area, or on their blogs, and I feel this is a serious omission considering the number of Americans and others who have strong feelings on this issue. And I keep posting this on the Wiki article, and I wonder who is removing this information? It's almost impossible to prove an omission, but I know this for a fact. If anyone thinks otherwise look at their archives, or try to post such an idea yourself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.254.108.245 (talk) 19:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

How to blog?

I don't see anything here about how one becomes a Huffington Post blogger. Is it strictly by invitation only? Is there an application/audition process? Who gets invited and why? ChrisStansfield 19:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to list

Just wanted to explain my revision here- I changed the categories from "what people are" to different industries, since a lot of the people there do more than one thing and since, by definition, they're all writers by virtue of being on the HuffPo. I thought it was more important to show the variety of professional backgrounds the bloggers come from. Some of the people and the categories they belong to are arguable since several people could arguably fit in one or more groups to a certain degree. Ultimately, I went with what the person is best known for- people might dispute putting Cronkite in the "Broadcasting" section rather than journalism, for example, but since his actual reporting/print media career is so small compared to his anchoring career (remember, he came from the days when newsreaders did less of their own investigation) I thought it apropo that he be recognized for his contributions to television rather than journalism. Likewise, Tavis Smileyhas certainly authored books, but the average man on the street knows him from his talk show more than anything. So there he went. I also edited some links that were pointing to the wrong people, and perhaps most controversially, deleted quite a few of the red-linked names. Anyone who was redlinked who was not mentioned in any other WP articles got deleted, as were anyone whose greatest notability comes from HuffPo blogging (which makes the concept of "notable contributors" pretty circular.ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 22:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Out of date

Tagged as out of date. The logo is old, there's a reference to 2006 as present-day, etc. I'm sure the contributors list has changed considerably, too. 68.165.76.80 (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Liberals

No comment on how incredibly liberal the Huffington Post is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.180.251 (talk) 22:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If you wish to brand the Huffington Post as "liberal" you must place this label in context of other blogs and news sources. "Liberal" and "conservative" are loaded terms and POV, and should be used only if the news source describes itself this way or there is hard research to support using that label. Bapgar (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Bapgar, identifying the HP as liberal is helpful to the reader, not to mention completely true. If you think you need "hard research" to make that determination, then, in my opinion, you have never looked to the HP online. If you think liberal is loaded, and maybe it is, the some other term should describe (Democrat, left-leaning, leftist).--Lindsay (talk) 03:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Party because the liberal-conservative dichotomy is so ridiculously nondescript, Identifying the HP as "liberal" is only helpful -- as Bapgar suggested -- to the extent it is done in the context of the greater blogosphere. Easily, the HP is left of, say, the Drudge Report, but it is markedly right of Znet, for example. The HP invites commentary from contributors across the political spectrum, and assessing any lib-con identification now may be premature, anyway: While the HP has been quite critical of the current Republican administration, it hasn't yet existed under a Democratic White House -- and its founder was a notable, even celebrated, critic of Clinton-era policies in her own editorials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.68.68.201 (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The author was a critic of the Clinton-era policies for being centrist. She has on repeated accounts claimed the only way to win the White House (for Sen. Obama) was to make a turn towards the left. --Ram Astra (talk) 22:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

The opening paragraph describes the organization as 'liberal' but it's not clear what this means. Is this 'liberal' in the normal European sense or in the strange use of the word in the USA? To me liberal is the opposite of restrictive media like you can find in countries with authoritarian governments. All media organizations outside of the USA would seek to call themselves liberal. The vast majority of US media when compared to that in Europe, Australasia and other parts of the world is incredibly politically biased and is almost always full of commercial influences and very little public (i.e. not commercially owned and run on an independent basis like the BBC). American politics is so strange - a country where 'liberal' is thought of as a bad thing and a country where 'blue' represents left'wing and red represents 'right-wing'. And of course a country where so many people lack the intelligence to vote for someone without being influenced by media or their churches - such a depressing situation from a country which claims to be leading the world. I hope Americans make the right decision this time at the polls because the world is sick of having to tolerate a regime which stole an election, brought conflict to many parts around the world and have fucked up the world financial systems in its pursuit of "free" capitalism.

If you followed the liberal link, you would've gotten the impression that sentence was trying to make...also the citation offered was from the Guardian (A British newspaper if I'm not mistaken). Wikipedia isn't the place to put up personal rants like these. Go to the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post for that matter. Btw, I'm still waiting for a liberal to explain why the free markets are such a bad idea (that said I will be voting for Sen. Barack Obama this year) Ram Astra (talk) 17:21, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The reason I'm interested in seeing this article being tagged with a liberal label is because I don't want people to think the Huffington Post is a place that tolerates Centrist or Conservative viewpoints Ram Astra (talk) 17:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Liberal here means in the American political left sense. Also, critizing both a Democrat and a republican don't make you neutral. THe Huffington has existed under a Democratic congress, and in the same world as liberals. The question is what have they criticized people for. If they said the government does too little, than they are liberal, if too much, the conservative. Of course that doesn't always apply, but I think the point is made. 67.173.1.71 (talk) 19:54, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Huffingtonpost can correctly be described as "liberal." However the term Left-wing would not apply due to the centrist stance of most of their columnists. So for instance Huffingtonpost would never run a column by Noam Chomsky, arguably the leading intellectual on the left. But they will post the columns of centrist conservatives such as Mort Zuckerman. However, Most of their columnists clearly fall into a "center left" category or "neo-liberal" 97.91.175.129 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

So get a source for that opinion and insert it. ► RATEL ◄ 04:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

the The Drudge Report

The word "the" appears twice in a row in this article where the article says "the The Drudge Report." I am not 100% sure this is a mistake, since I don't know what "The Drudge Report" is. If this is a mistake, then please correct it for me and remove this section from this talk page (I am not watching this talk page, so if you leave a response here, I will not get it). If this is not a mistake, then please make a note of it here so that future editors will know to leave it the way it is.

Thanks! VegKilla (talk) 20:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Some of the references are linked back to the huffington post website itself. The context of the tag seems to suggest it is being used as an example to what the text is referring. Perhaps I am mistaken in my understanding of the WP policy of sourcing. In thatthey need to be independent of the articles subject. --K3vin (talk) 06:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Citizen Journalists

I have heard Huffinton Post's member's called citizen journalists, and that one broke the "god and guns" comment. the Post seems like a legitimate news source, at least I thought so, till I saw a link to a photoshopped pic of Palin, in KKK garb. What is the editorial process at the Post, is it a real online news paper? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rds865 (talk • contribs) 19:59, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Is the Media Research Center consider a RS?

I see some of the controversy section is sourced to the MRC. It doesn't look like a RS to me. What's the official WP word on it? ► RATEL ◄ 05:44, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

They don't seem to like it on the RS noticeboard. The material needs a new source or should go. ► RATEL ◄ 05:58, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case, what usually happens is the material is tagged for up to a week, and if a better source is not provided, then it may be removed. I've added the tag. Happyme22 (talk) 06:08, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

The MRC is as reliable a source as any partisan think tank or media watchdog group. If MMFA is a RS then so is the MRC. CENSEI (talk) 18:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

From the MRC: "Written by Director of Media Analysis Tim Graham and Research Director Rich Noyes, the Media Reality Check serves as an excellent reference for the most egregious examples of media bias." In short, it has no editorial oversight and is little more than a two-person blog. Albeit in spiffy PDF format for better press releases. arimareiji (talk) 21:39, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

With enough time passed, I'm removing the MRC sourced "controversies". ► RATEL ◄ 04:18, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Blog sources for allegations of theft by HuffPo

Ratel has yet to indicate why he/she does not feel that the accusations that the Huffington Post is stealing material is not notable.

The sources that accuses Huffpo such as the Chicago Reader, The Onion and Time Out Magazine are all very notable and the accusations have also been picked up by Wired:

The Huffington Post, a venture-capital-backed new media site that mixes links to other sites content with hundreds of celebrity and volunteer blogger posts, is being accused of slimy business practices by a handful of smaller publications who say the site is unfairly copying and publishing their content.

Whet Moser, an editor at alternata]ive weekly Chicago Reader wants to know why The Huffington Post's newly formed Chicago-focused venture is stealing their copyrighted concert reviews and reprinting them in whole in order to get search engine traffic. And he found other examples taken wholesale from The Onion and Time Out Chicago.

Ratel should come here to explain his/her edits before starting another edit war. CENSEI (talk) 23:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• You may not use blogs to promulgate accusations of theft. HuffPo frequently takes the 1st paragraph of other articles with links to the source articles at the end. In this case, unfortunately for HuffPo, looks like the first paragraph was the entire article (can't really even call it an article, just a couple of sentences). Someone made an error, it looks like it was immediately reversed when they were notified, so this is a mountain out of a molehill, no notability, crap sources. Stop it. ► RATEL ◄ 00:49, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

If the blogs are reliable sources, and since these blogs are published by newspapers they are RS, it is most certainly fodder for the article. It meets all the criteria, namely an accusation by a notable source and a follow up citation, by wired in this case, of an outside source noting the controversy. Considering how lax you have been on sourcing over at Drudge, I though you would be more sympathetic here. CENSEI (talk) 01:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia says that "exceptional claims require exceptional sources". Blogs are acceptable under some circumstances, when written by pre-eminent experts in their fields, for instance (see the guideline for heavens sake), but not for claims like this, made by some unknown hack who sprinkles words like "dumbass" in his drivel. Got it? ► RATEL ◄ 01:31, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Saying that Huffpo is pilfering content is hardly an exceptional claim. These blogs are published under the editorial oversight of the newspapers that host them. CENSEI (talk) 02:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Mideast conflict

Perhaps content should be added on the Huffington Post's coverage of the Mideast conflict, since it is one of the big ideological divides in major news media. ADM (talk) 18:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Blog sources for CAM criticisms

Please explain how the blogs you cite, which contain screeds of vitriolic and uninformative ad hominems, will pass the provisions of this restriction? ► RATEL ◄ 15:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

First of all, please note that the sources are intended to support the statement that "The Huffington Post has been criticized..." and that statement is neutral in regards to whether the critique is justified. The sources are not intended to support any statement on HuffPosts stance regarding CAM.

Secondly, these are not just any random blogs. The texts are posted on Pharyngula (blog) and Bad Astronomy, a science blog associated with Discover (magazine). Both authors are notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles. This means that the criticism has been made in well-known media for news and opinion, in this case blogs.

Thirdly, yes, the texts can be described as "vitriolic", but what has that to do with their use to support the statement that criticism has been made?

Fourthly, these are just the tip of the iceberg of reactions to Huffington Posts on science blogs. In fact the current home page of ScienceBlogs is filled with the headlines of blog posts about Huffington Post. They are, however, mostly anonymous and so probably not RS. This Post by Janet D. Stemwedel might be a source more to your liking.Sjö (talk) 17:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

The requirements for blog citations are specific. The person must be a recognised expert in the field. Are the blog writers you want to use medical experts in the field of vaccination or the other issues raised? If yes, then use them. If no, do not. Merely being a scientist is not enough. ► RATEL ◄ 03:21, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

You have to consider the statement that the sources are supposed to support. Their expertise in the field is not relevant in this case, but their position as notable blogs. I'm sure that e.g. an opinion piece in The Washington Post or a statement by a prominent politician would be considered a RS, even if the authors were outside their field of expertise. That's because this is not about verifying that the Huffington Post publishes incorrect information, but it's about verifying that it has been criticized for doing that.

Besides, you do know that you are referring to an essay and not a guideline? I feel quite comfortable ignoring the rules set in any essay.Sjö (talk) 07:50, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm inclined to remove the whole paragraph unless you can show that this criticism comes from notable sources in the fields concerned. Some of the sources you've given are just rants. ► RATEL ◄ 10:09, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have told you why I consider those sources relevant. Please respond to my arguments.Sjö (talk) 17:31, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Your arguments do not hold water in the face of the prohibitions on self-published sources. It's just a matter of time before blog-sourced rants are removed from the page, either by me or someone else. ► RATEL ◄ 23:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. There is no general prohibition on using blogs as sources, but they should be used with discretion. Please see WP:BLOGS and the documents that page refers to. In this case, since the claim that is supported is that the Huffington Post is being criticized it doesn't take much expertise to see if that is true. (In fact, I think that a notable blogger like PZ Myers can count as an expert on blog relations, but that's neither here nor there.) I propose instead this link [1] from the Daily Kos and this link [2] from RedState as better alternatives than the ones I psoted earlier. Not only are the authors more level-headed, at least the Daily Kos is better known. What do you say?Sjö (talk) 16:24, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The Daily Kos one is the best you've come up with. Use that. ► RATEL ◄ 23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) Does no one else find it ironic that Discover, which is a much more reliable source has a blog that is not considered a reliable source because it is a blog, yet Hufpo is also a blog which is used as a reliable source even though it's reliability is questionable at best. Kind of like the pot calling the kettle black. Even more ironic is that the Discover blog source is written by a person that has blogged at Hufpo under which his blog would be considered a RS, but now at Discover it is not? I agree with Sjo. Arzel (talk) 00:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Ratel: OK, I'm glad that we can agree on that. I added the Daily Kos link and rewrote the sentence to make it show that the CAM criticism is made mainly on science blogs.Sjö (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

HUFFPO vs DRUDGE

They may be compared in the media sometimes, but this is an article about HuffPo, not Drudge. It certainly is appropriate to include it with the description as to why the site exists (as it was a founding reason) and once within the statistics (as it is a major competitor), but to constantly make the comparison seems redundant and unnecessary. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They are compared constantly in the media, and with good reason, each being the flagship in their class for the 2 sides of US politics. As an inclusionist, I think keeping the info adds to the knowledge imparted. ► RATEL ◄ 03:26, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I disagree. Let's see if anyone else has anything to say on the subject. — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

A Google News search on "Huffington Drudge traffic" gives some idea of what I'm referring to. 04:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, that's a biased search because you include both "Drudge" and "Huffington", so, naturally, you're going to find every instance of it. Like I said before, let's see if anyone else weighs in. — BQZip01 — ^talk 12:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, it does seem biased, now you mention it. You could also try a search for just "drudge traffic" and you'll see what I mean. I only mention this because I have set up a news alert on drudge, and huffpo is almost always mentioned when traffic stats come up. ► RATEL ◄ 13:53, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

They are noticeably different in function, huffingtonpost publishes opinion columns by their various contributors. Drudge does not. Huffingtonpost functions as a news archive, meaning you can find all of their past stories. Drudge does not, only current events can be found on drudge. Additionally Huffingtonpost operates as a social networking site, meaning that users can comment on the news and opinion pieces on the site, again drudge does not97.91.175.129 (talk) 02:33, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

anti-Semitism on Huffington Post

there have been commentators who have accused Huffington Post of anti-semitism including http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=101131 and others. This should be reflected on the page. There are TONS of anti-semitic comments on that sight, and the face that there are almost no pro-Israel blog posts and tons of anti-Israel blog posts has come under criticism.Tallicfan20 (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC) People have also said the exact opposite as documented in this instance: http://www.antiwar.com/blog/2008/12/31/the-spineless-huffington-post-gives-equal-time/ I don't think you could find any huffington post blogger who approve of attacks on Israel, yet there are many who argue in favor of Israel attacking Gaza and Iran. Here is a recent example http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mark-joseph/memo-to-bibi_b_301025.html97.91.175.129 (talk) 22:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I would argue instead that while it might feature a good deal of anti-Zionism, i.e. criticising Israel's various policies, this doesn't necessarily translate into formal antisemitsm. For instance, many of its contributors have no problem with discussing their personal Jewish identity.[3][4][5] ADM (talk) 02:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Obviously they aren't an anti-semitic website. Not even close. After all they publish people like zuckerman, dershowitz and david harris all the time. None of the criticism claiming that they are anti-semintic is even actually directed at the Huffpost editorial staff, it is instead directed at the anonymous commenters on the site of which you could obviously find pro-israeli comments as well. And actually if you judge criticism by goggle search, which I find to be a good gauge of english language opinion, you will see that "Huffington zionist" gets 560,000 hits whereas "Huffington anti-Semitic" only gets 100,000 hits. That's more than a 5 to 1 ratio 97.91.173.58 (talk) 21:20, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

intro

Would it be contentious to describe the site as "liberal" in the lead? Drudge Report has conservative in the lead. Falcon8765 (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Traffic statistics

For the record, I have made some minor edits to this section. Firstly, I removed the references to the places of Huffington and Drudge on the political spectrum: they are not relevant here. Their inclusion makes the entire section look like a "my side is winning" partisan bunfight. As a reader I want to know how much traffic Huffington Post gets relative to similar sites. The relative political positions of Huffington and Drudge are well-established elsewhere; an analysis of internet traffic vs. political leanings belongs in another article altogether (and good luck with NOR and NPOV there). Secondly, the comparison with 'middle-grounded political news sources' is not just similarly misdirected, but utterly unsupported: it is gone. Thirdly, I tried to neutralize the second-para citations a bit by making their sources explicit: I admit, though, I fail to understand either one. There is no link provided to published Google Analytics figures, and by my admittedly-superficial understanding of Technorati, I don't believe it says what this section claims it says. I leave it to a braver editor to make them better. • Lainagier • talk • 01:08, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Critics

So what exactly is "the point of a blog"? That comment seems rather POV. →Vik Reykja 28 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

I've removed the critics section altogether for having no substance. No criticism about the views expressed therein, just complaints that it doesn't act like Joe Schmoe's blog. I'm surprised they're not complaining about the font used. →Vik Reykja 30 June 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Deleted the reference to Huffingtontoast for varity of reasons. The website itself doesnt even exist anymore. The paragraph was unnecessary as well; claims that the parody site "accurately parodies HuffingtonPost" and "humourous" are clearly the writer's POV. Such snark does not work well here.

Copyright Issues: Wasn't there a controversy at some point about whether it was legal with respect to copyright to aggregate news from other sources and put it on their website? If so, I think that would be interesting information to add to this article and to tell if and how the issue was resolved. Showeropera (talk) 20:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Stop making bland assumptions.

I've already fixed the introduction to be as neutral as possible and some dimwit decided to place into words his assumption that the huffington post is a "liberal slanted" site in contentions with the "conservative" drudge report.

Comment tagged inappropriate under talk page guidelines. inappropriate personal attack

Revert your changes. 00:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by LaRouxEMP (talk • contribs) 00:06, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Andrew Breitbart

Came up with the idea of the website and created it. No mention of him on this page. His own Wikipedia page gives him some credit, but nothing here. What's the deal? Promontoriumispromontorium (talk) 03:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

WP:OR removal

Censorship

• The Huffington Post is regularly criticized by its users for the arbitrary and extreme censorship practiced on the site. Although most of these comments are censored from the site itself they regularly show up on Internet sites such as Crooks and Liars, Digg.com, and The Daily Kos. This practice has resulted in a blog that documents the extreme censorship on the site and a petition from Huffpo users on change.org directed to The Huffington Post.

• First source: Sourced to a coment on a Blog post at Crooks and Lairs.com
• I am not sure sure what the Dig.com Ref is even Referencing here....
• The Daily Kos source is invalid again its a comment on a random story
• The fourth is Blogspot.com of some ones personal Flame
• the Final is a typical online petetion that anyone can create

The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:26, 18 September 2010 (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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.123 (talk) 09:33, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Turlington

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

Hello? B/c no one cares about Christy Turlington!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.165.123 (talk) 09:34, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

It is not the place of an online encyclopedia to label publications as either left or right leaning, unless such a leaning is an important part of the way it is perceived by society at large. Unless you can provide citations which prove this, you should not label the Huffington Post either way. Attilitus (talk) 23:56, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

That is an odd statement since the vast majority of the free thinking world knows that HuffPo is a liberal organization that presents a left point of view on pretty much everything. By your statement we must make the distinction because it is the way they are perceived by the society at large. No sense in trying to fool the readers here that they are something that they are not. Arzel (talk) 16:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Are any newspapers etc labelled for their political position? I mean Pravda's an example of a communist newspaper but it's not called a left wing newspaper. Most of the papers here in Oz are considered left wing\left of centre though a handful might be right. Contents vary a bit depending on who the days contributors are e.g. Andrew Bolt => neo-communist :)- Those (very few) people I know online who mention the Post clearly consider it left wing ubertrash, the fact that they're actually referencing anything out of it is amazing. Is it possible to classify something that is common knowledge if there's no academic reference? Hmm, it was founded by a liberal, an ex-conservative one. Guess that could be used as a bias argument.118.208.39.236 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:17, 4 January 2012 (UTC).

The huffingtonpost is a patisan organization. They are not left, and they are not really liberal. They are partisan democrat, and endorces democratoc candidates over republican ones in congressional and presidential elections. Not having this in the article makes the article very poor. 97.91.179.137 (talk) 19:34, 17 January 2012 (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)

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 89.242.49.234 (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)

HPMG

Torontonian1 (talk) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)Should there be a reference/redirect from the increasingly common abbreviation HPMG (Huffington Post Media Group)?

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."

AOL acquisition

Quote from the current version: "On February 7, 2011, AOL acquired the mass market[9] 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)

Tagged as POV

Section 'Allegations of supporting pseudo-science' seems rather long winded and a one sided view. Can we shorten it or find RS that can balance it?--Canoe1967 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

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[6]), 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. 76.121.244.252 (talk) 01:20, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I've waited 3 weeks (21 days) and no comment has been made, so I'm going to remove the POV tag for now. 76.121.244.252 (talk) 21:13, 29 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: [7]. I think we can consider this one resolved. 76.121.244.252 (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)