Talk:The Daily Beast

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the The Daily Beast article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 365 days

Journalism Low‑importance

	Journalism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Journalism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of journalism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JournalismWikipedia:WikiProject JournalismTemplate:WikiProject JournalismJournalism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Websites: Computing Low‑importance

	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.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Davemaney (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article.

Inclusion of Bias in the Article

WP:RSP has consensus that this publication is biased. Why then is it going against concensus to include a reference to that bias in this article? The other topic on this page about bias seems to have some reliable sources that could be used to back up the point. Why weren't they allowed to be used? AlwaysLegitEdits (talk) 22:37, 8 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What publication are you referring to? --Hipal (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RSP states the following regarding Allsides: "the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts." Allsides currently has a Left bias rating for the Daily Beast with high confidence.

By this community's own standards, this is defined as a reliable source. 216.189.201.221 (talk) 03:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am deleting a comment added by 2402:E000:44A:F48:298A:A8E0:3912:216B, which was just a bunch of external links to a news aggregator's main menu of webpages.[[1]] I don't think it was meant to be vandalism, looks like a copy-paste gone wrong, but because it was just those external links it's appropriate to remove under WP:TPO as promotional and/or disruptive to the page.

It should also be noted, for anyone coming upon this page seeing some users claim to be quoting WP:ALLSIDES, that they have edited those quotes in a way which does not accurately reflect the information on the WP:RSP page. The full quote reads (bold is mine), "There is general consensus that reliability varies among the website's articles and should be determined on a case-by-case basis; while the high-confidence ratings are generally reliable as they are reviewed carefully by experts, others depend on blind user surveys that some editors consider opinionated and less reliable."

The position of the RSP page is that there is not enough consensus to determine if Allsides is reliable or not. Therefore, it's usage should always be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and it cannot be treated as a reliable source on its own for deciding the bias of the Daily Beast. The RSP page also lists the Daily Beast as lacking in enough consensus to label it as leaning in any direction. Anyone claiming that there is any information on WP:RSP that firmly establishes The Daily Beast as left-leaning is either misreading the text on that page or deliberately misrepresenting what it says. CleverTitania (talk) 23:44, 17 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People here are not misquoting WP:ALLSIDES. The part you bolded refers to ratings that are NOT high-confidence, so it's irrelevant to your point. The Daily Beast's high-confidence POV rating on Allsides is based on review by experts, not solely "blind user surveys."

Your comment on WP:DAILYBEAST is simply untrue, the summary says, "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source." This begs the question, biased towards what? The linked noticeboards demonstrate an UNAMBIGUOUS consensus on the direction of the bias. The lack of consensus is regarding reliability not bias, a very important distinction.

The issue people have is cherry picking WP:RSP to justify an invisible comment that prevents impartial editing, a clear violation of WP:NPOV. No one here is trying to deprecate Daily Beast as a source, or vandalize the page, just be impartial in our editing practices. For some reason, the editors here will not let this go, and are losing credibility in the process. 57.140.108.25 (talk) 16:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

John Avlon was current, not former, editor-in-chief in 2015 interview

John Avlon was the current editor-in-chief for 2015 interview but the article says that he was former holder of that position. 49.176.123.156 (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]