Talk:HuffPost/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Launch of "The HuffPost Show"

Just saw on CNN that HuffPost announced that its launching "a primetime political comedy program" featuring satire. The article speculates on the timing given Jon Stewart's recent announcement of his retirement, but this new development could be relevant for the page if anyone would care to take a stab at it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chief8 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Working Conditions

A single anonymous source claiming to have once worked for the Huffington Post is not exactly the most reliable source of information, especially not when they use such vague accusations. I'm going to remove this part completely. 96.28.39.103 (talk) 06:09, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on The Huffington Post. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120213112518/http://ariannaonline.huffingtonpost.com/columns/column.php?id=476 to http://ariannaonline.huffingtonpost.com/columns/column.php?id=476
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110628004430/http://nwu.org:80/boycott-huffington-post-0 to http://nwu.org/boycott-huffington-post-0

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:05, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Huffington Post. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120303223200/http://ariannaonline.huffingtonpost.com/columns/printer_friendly.php?id=504 to http://ariannaonline.huffingtonpost.com/columns/printer_friendly.php?id=504

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:42, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on The Huffington Post. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090111145131/http://www.lapressclub.org:80/index.cfm?page=page&pageid=56&cat=45&subcat=56&subsubcat=&id=30773 to http://www.lapressclub.org/index.cfm?page=page&pageid=56&cat=45&subcat=56&subsubcat=&id=30773

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

"Politically liberal"

"Politically liberal" has been in the intro for years, with a proper citation, until some IP removed it on August 15, 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2601:58C:C400:9DE0:ADEA:A945:784C:2D7D

The article has since been vandalized multiple times.

I tried to restore the label but Sro23 disagrees. It should remain, because there is strong Wikipedia precedent for it (see article on Drudge Report, Daily Caller, Breitbart, Townhall, etc.). Huffington Post, according to all reputable sources, was founded as a liberal alternative to Drudge Report, and the precedent should be followed.

Marquis de Faux (talk) 01:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, no. The "politically liberal" bit was added to the lead in January of this year:[1]. I also think it's worth pointing out that the article is currently semi protection due to recent edits such as these:[2]. Sro23 (talk) 03:07, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Ok, vandalism is a problem. But do you have any reason why "politically liberal" should not be there?

Marquis de Faux (talk) 18:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I added "some still consider it to espouse liberal views" as a compromise. 204.29.111.2 (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

My problem is the inconsistencies between pages. You can look at Breitbart's [3] page which states in the first sentence that Breitbart is "politically conservative" and the only sources are articles that give their opinions. I agree that it should have "politically conservative" in the lede, because it's true, but the same should apply for HuffPo. They should not get a free pass. Liberal bias in WikiPedia is an insult to what this website stands for: free, unbiased exchange of information... --104.148.178.88 (talk) 11:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The thing is, Huffington Post claims it does not have a liberal point of view, which somewhat complicates the situation; Breitbart makes no such claims about its conservatism. 204.29.111.2 (talk) 15:43, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on The Huffington Post. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090111145131/http://www.lapressclub.org/index.cfm?page=page&pageid=56&cat=45&subcat=56&subsubcat=&id=30773 to http://www.lapressclub.org/index.cfm?page=page&pageid=56&cat=45&subcat=56&subsubcat=&id=30773

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

How far liberal? Continuation

I joined those reverting heavy-handed additions of this bare link: [4] and another to Allsides.com about bias. I think this source needs to be discussed. I was interested when I looked at it to note that it does not actually rate the Huffington Post as extremely left-wing: what it says is similar to what the article already said: that the site is self-admittedly to the left but the people Allsides.com surveyed disagreed in large numbers in 2013 with characterizing it as simply left-wing, and in mid-2016 most of those surveyed saw it as left-leaning. So I'm not sure the source adds anything useful, and if it is to be used, I don't see its justifying strengthening the statements already in the article, contrary to how it's been used. Yngvadottir (talk) 18:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

@Ycringe: has been adding similar claims, with "references" to allsides.com, to three or four other articles. I suggest that a centralized discussion of allsides.com would be beneficial. @Yngvadottir: , do you have any objection to my adding notes on those other articles' talk pages, pointing them to here? Or should we just take it to WP:RSN ? Jeh (talk) 18:53, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Sounds (mostly) like a job for RSN, although in this instance I'm also concerned about whether the source was being used accurately. Since you've seen the issue on other pages, too, you go ahead and post at RSN, but it may also be worth looking at the issue of accurate representation. I'll post a note about that on Ycringe's talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 19:11, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

We can certainly report on what allsides.com says (pretty much any site or any one is a RS for what they themselves say), as long as we make clear that we're noting their opinion. We absolutely must not, in Wikipedia's voice, echo any site's opinions as if they were established and accepted truth. And that is what Ycringe is doing and is aggressively defending. See WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. We must represent all of the significant opinions but we must describe them as opinions. We can't pick one source and say, or even imply, that "this opinion is truth".

Note that the only evidence we have for allsides.com's "fair" methodology are claims made at the site itself. Furthermore they do seem to depend heavily on their surveys of their readers. The participants in those surveys are self-selected volunteers and thus these results are easily subject to gaming. A few of the "ratings" cited by Ycringe (though not this one) are stated at allsides as being only of "low" confidence, yet Ycringe quotes these opinions as if they were established fact. And in some cases allsides has used as part of their "rating" material they have found at Wikipedia! Which of course we would reject as not a reliable source. Jeh (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Ycringe's last edits have been reverted and they have been blocked for sock puppetry, both by Materialscientist. So it looks as if this may be a dead issue, unless anyone has anything new to add? Yngvadottir (talk) 15:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

JNW1998 seems to be the only unblocked user still pushing for allsides.com on this article in particular. Sro23 (talk) 16:43, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

JNW1998 hasn't edited the page for some time. We'll see. It is still possible that IPs might continue to try to push allsides into the other sites that were involved in this storm. I have set up a Google alert for references to allsides in en wikipedia.

The issue of whether or not allsides.com is a RS, and for what content, is still extant. I would not object to wording that says ~"allsides.com rated site xxx as yyy..." or ~"allsides.com has opined that site xxx is yyy..." but I will continue to strenuously object to wording that simply parrots allsides' rating as if the rating itself is established fact. And, frankly, Ycringe's refusal to understand or to accept this this distinction, and some of its other responses, border on a WP:CIR issue.)

I will continue these objections until we see some independent verification and analysis of allsides' methods. Claims by the allsides site of how they reach their ratings are meaningless without independent verification. And it is clear that they are relying on self-selected surveys, which are subject to both subconscious bias and deliberate gaming. Jeh (talk) 17:07, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HuffPost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110511133206/http://www.lead411.com/topnewyorkcompanies.html to http://www.lead411.com/topnewyorkcompanies.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:40, 10 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on HuffPost. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141029011503/http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/150456/national-writers-union-drops-huffington-post-boycott/ to http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/mediawire/150456/national-writers-union-drops-huffington-post-boycott/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:35, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

Infobox: website or newspaper

There's an RfC on whether a news website should use {{Infobox website}} or {{Infobox newspaper}}: Talk:The Times of Israel#RfC on infobox. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 14:01, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Political Leanings

I see this has been discussed before, but the comments are a bit dated and I'd like to address some specifics in the article. For example, this is in the second paragraph:

"The Huffington Post was launched on May 9, 2005, as a liberal/left commentary outlet and alternative to news aggregators such as the Drudge Report"

1. Is there anything to suggest that the Huffington Post has evolved into anything else since its launch? It was launched as such, and is still widely referred to as such.
2. Would it be possible to summarize the political views section in the lead, instead of breaking it out in its own section? It's rather short anyway.
3. Is there any reason for the phrasing "representatives of the Republican Party" rather than "critics"?

FYI - not that this matters much, but I was referencing some of the phrasing and presentation in the Fox News article for the basis of some of these points. 69.253.171.246 (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Why is Huffington post identified as "liberal" in the first sentence, while fox news or news corp is NOT? It seems here the term liberal is used as a perjorative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F388:109C:0:E1BB:9929:DED7:E49D (talk) 15:45, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Lede discussion

@Tiffersno1:

I found 4 reliable sources that would suggest that the HuffPost is more than just "politically liberal" and needs to be described as so. As with Breitbart News, sources were found that suggest Breitbart is indeed more than just "politically conservative" and needs to be described as so.

Tiffersno1 disputes my editing and has reverted my version 3 times, so I have decided to start a discussion on the talk page. I am proposing that the lede describes HuffPost as either extremely liberal or "far-left", or something along those lines, with sources attributed. CatcherStorm ^talk 08:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

diff. Sources:

• mediabiasfactcheck.com Never heard of it, not sure how reliable (or relevant) it is. Doesn't describe as far-left but as "strongly liberal".
• allsides.com Again, is this relevant or reliable? Again, doesn't mention far-left, only as "left" and "liberal".
• Two blog posts at HuffPost[5][6] Doesn't say anything about it, seems like a mix of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to use this as a ref.

I don't see sufficient support for this edit. Saturnalia0 (talk) 08:42, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

@Saturnalia0: I don't regularly stay on Wikipedia, so I was wondering if you could explain to me why Breitbart News is described as far-right and opposition to the claim is quickly shot down because it's consensus that Wikipedia should describe Breitbart as far-right because the media says so. After looking at the page it seems as if the only reason Breitbart is described as far right is because media establishments like WaPo and CNN and the New York Times deem it so. I'm having trouble understanding why nobody can actively challenge this ruling. I thought that Wikipedia was supposed to take in all sides of the spectrum and put out the most factual information possible. The consensus at the Breitbart article is that "because there are several media outlets that describe Breitbart as far-right, we too must also describe Breitbart as far-right". The fact that Breitbart itself disputes the claim that they are far-right and advocate for far-right standpoints like racism and fascism says a lot (http:// www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/08/21/breitbart-right-wing-donald-trump). Why is the dissenting position completely left out of the discussion?

What kind of sources would be acceptable before someone would agree here that the sources do accurately suggest HuffPost is not simply "politically liberal", but more than that? Maybe HuffPost does not accurately fall under the description of "far-left", but to simply call Huffington Post "politically liberal" is inaccurate. Just like calling Breitbart "moderately conservative" isn't accurate. Wikipedia says that you're not allowed to interpret sources for yourself and base an argument for consensus off of it, but that's exactly what I'm seeing here. CatcherStorm ^talk 09:36, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia does "take is all sides". That does not, however, mean that all ideas are equal. Despite sources claiming otherwise, we state without equivocation that the Earth is more or less spherical, 4.5 billion years old, goes around the Sun, etc. Yes, there are sources that say the Earth is flat, was created less than 10,000 years ago and is the center of the universe. Reliable sources, however, do not make these claims.

The New York Times is a reliable source with editorial oversight and a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Ditto The Washington Post, CNN, BBC, etc. For factual claims, there's little sense in disputing a cite to any one of them. The location of a media outlet on various spectrums is not a factual claim, it is an opinion. If the NYT says something is the bleeding edge of the alt-right, it might be -- if several other similarly reliable sources agree.

In order to say that HuffPost is "far left", "extremely liberal" or whatever, you will need to find reliable sources clearly stating that.

Is "mediabiasfactcheck" a reliable source? Their about page says they are funded by ads and "...the pockets of our bias checkers." It was "... founded by Dave Van Zandt in 2015. Dave studied Communications in college and over the years has focused on personal research in media bias and the role of media in politics. Dave is a registered Non-Affiliated voter who values evidence based reporting."[7] By comparison, the NYT was founded in the 19th century, has more Pulitzer Prizes than any other outlet and is funded by ads and a paid circulation in the millions.

How about "allsides.com"? Well, if you'd like, you can vote on ratings for various outlets at the top of each article. They call say they have a "broad spectrum of Americans blindly rate the bias of articles". I say it's a SLOP. Wikipedia calls it "site users' ratings". Do they have a editorial oversight and a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? Well, they are "made up of folks from every side of the aisle and in between. So far no food fights have erupted." Lack of food fights is generally a good thing, but it's hardly what I'd call a "reliable source". - SummerPhD^v2.0 16:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Why is it inaccurate to call HuffPost politically liberal? "Politically liberal" does not describe or qualify the extent to which it is liberal, only that it is liberal. That is accurate. To say "extremely" or something like that would be introducing subjective opinion and violate WP:NPOV. Personally I think the Breitbart article is problematic but that article is such a quagmire I'm not touching it. That does not mean we should spread that to other articles. Marquis de Faux (talk) 23:10, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Huffpost is certainly overtly liberal. but just because it has an overt side doesn't mean it is "far left". Brietbart does feature stories that are considered "far right" and it is called so in reliable sources. Most reliable sources do not call Huffpost "far-left" and i haven't seen anything advocating communism on there. Wikiman5676 (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2017 (UTC) Oh yeah? This article vilifying white women just for the color of their skin is definitely far-left: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/all-white-actress-cover-los-angeles-times-envelope_us_5a3dc12ae4b0b0e5a7a22dbd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:B004:AEF4:B06B:A9D6:5529:99F1 (talk) 12:18, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

• This is proof that the Huffington Post is a far-left propaganda rag for the Democrats. Only far-left extremists smear people as all the -ists and -phobes without any proof. And the horrible treatment of Wikipedia smearing pro-Israel Jewish sites like Breitbart News and The Rebel Media is proof that Wikipedia is part of the Left's agenda to destroy Israel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seersmace (talk • contribs) 02:13, 11 June 2018 (UTC) — Seersmace (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Yawn. The Democrats aren't far-left. HuffPost isn't far left. This is just nutty. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

• Related to the lede, why is Breitbart listed first? Yes, it's interesting that he was there at the creation, but the linked sources indicate only briefly. Since the outlet is named after her, Ariana Huffington should be listed first. 136.159.160.8 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Political Orientation in the Lead?

I noticed that Wikipedia includes the political leanings of some sites in the opening sentence of their entries. For example, Breitbart and the Drudge Report both have their political leanings stated in the first sentence of their Wikipedia entries.

Should the Huffington Post's political leaning be included in the opening sentence? Should the other articles not include their political leanings in the opening sentence?

As long as reliable sources have verified the political leanings of sites such as these, where should that information be included in their entries? Does it matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auctoris (talk • contribs) 03:29, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Please see discussions above and in the archives. Jim1138 (talk) 08:10, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply Jim1138. I am not coming from a partisan position. I honestly want Wikipedia to be objective and remain non-partisan itself.

So let me make sure I understand the guidelines. If an organization says it is not something while other reliable sources say it is something, Wikipedia is to go with what the organization says about itself? If the Drudge Report says it is not far-right, then Wikipedia would not label it far-right—even if reliable sources say it is?

Is that correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auctoris (talk • contribs) 02:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

An organization's statements about itself is a wp:primary source, Wikipedia goes by what wp:RS secondary or tertiary sources say. Jim1138 (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any RS that makes a clear statement on HuffPost's leanings. Jim1138 (talk) 04:46, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again for replying. The political leanings and sources are already in this entry. See the section "Content and Coverage". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auctoris (talk • contribs) 06:39, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Jim, I think that's definitely a misleading statement. HuffPo is clearly a left-leaning site and is identified as such by, for example, the Washington Post and CNET, both mainstream, reliable sources of information. I'm going to add it back as it is germane to the lead per WP:LEDE: [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] Buffs (talk) forgot sig/timedate stamp

Thank you to whoever this is for looking into it?Auctoris (talk) 00:42, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Buffs: My error, thanks for the correction. I was getting this discussion confused with another. @Auctoris: Why did you bring this up? Jim1138 (talk) 21:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Duplications

There is no denying that HuffPost employs a liberal political stance, as a flurry of sources have pointed this out. However, this does not give reason to repeat ourselves every other sentence. We have an entire section dedicated to the political stance of this outlet, where the claims should be centralized. The lead then summarizes this section. The content section itself should only include the type of content they produce (political stance is also already a sub-section of the content section, so we should again avoid repetition).

One factual problem there was is the claim that it "launched on May 9, 2005 as The Huffington Post as an overtly liberal-left commentary outlet"; apart from the lack of commas, this is incorrect, and the source does not support the claim that the magazine was "overtly liberal" from day one. One side note, noting the nationality of the magazine in the content section is superfluous, as Americans do not define "news and opinion" website differently than Europeans or elsewho. Regards. Lordtobi (✉) 16:51, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

"There is no denying that HuffPost employs a liberal political stance"...kinda supports putting that in the lead... (see discussion above). It's well documented and needs to be in the lead + expanded in another place (per WP:LEAD, but doesn't need to be everywhere. Buffs (talk) 20:48, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Readded in just 2 places. Buffs (talk) 20:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

The source does not say anywhere that the site was founded specifically to be liberal. This might or might not have been part of the site's initial idea (as opposed to its direct development with the founder's own political standing) but we cannot tell unless reliable sources do so (WP:V), which is not the case here. Lordtobi (✉) 15:24, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2019

change "edited from a left-wing perspective" to "edited from a pro-Democratic perspective" the linked sources only attest to an anti-trump perspective. might be a pro-democrat bias, but to equate that with "left wing" is muddying the waters. "left wing" is predominantly an economic position, one neither huffpo nor most of the two parties hold. you wouldn't call the DNVP left wing, either, just because they weren't as far right as the NSDAP. 2003:E9:43DC:AA00:71DB:5ECC:B7E9:4EB0 (talk) 00:21, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. OhKayeSierra (talk) 05:55, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I've changed the political description in the lead to match what the article actually says

It's so easy to have tunnel vision when you look at a big article and see only part of it. I was guilty of that here for a while, until I actually read the section on its political views. Here's another source, by the way.[13] Doug Weller talk 13:23, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2020

In order to balance treatment of comparable conservative/right-wing online publications, the Huffpost should be described at left-wing in the opening paragraph.

Further, Liberal does not mean progressive-left in most countries the way it does in the US. In most countries it means centre-left or centre; in Australia it is the name of the conservative party.

Citations as follows: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/huffpost-media-bias https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/huffington-post/ DDBRIGHT (talk) 22:48, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Unfortunately, the two sources provided do not appear to be WP:RS. Please provide reliable sources. --RegentsPark (comment) 00:35, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Verizon scrambling to unload HuffPost as losses mount

Can someone add this info to the article https://nypost.com/2020/09/28/verizon-scrambling-to-unload-huffpost-as-losses-mount/ ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:59DB:4100:8965:B1BD:C6AE:D0BB (talk) 06:43, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Stating the obvious

I came to the talk page here because the very first sentence of this article identifies the Huffington Post as a liberal website, with a source. So I looked at the source, and it says the opposite. The only website that the source identifies as substantially left of center is Daily Kos. I don't know why that was allowed.2606:ED00:2:1014:0:0:0:1007 (talk) 18:08, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

HuffPo is a liberal/progressive/left website. There really is no argument against this fact. It is a pretty big diservice to not make a note of this idological bias within the article somewhere. Arzel (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

It's generally better not to spoon-feed opinion to the reader, especially in the lede. They're fully capable of making up their own minds. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Arzel cited to Politico and you reverted without any reference to Wikipedia policy concerning sourcing. What you've just said here is, in fact, opinion. At issue is what the facts are here concerning HuffPo's lean and why you would rather that readers not have this information which they could use to "make up their own minds" (having seen the cited sources they can review those sources). Arianna doesn't wanted HuffPo tagged. Fair enough. We can quote her on that. But WP:NPOV means that we do not simply line up with her POV if there are reliable sources suggesting otherwise.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

This site is rabidly propagandist. Comments undergo intense censorship. Even after being approved in pending mode, published comments can be wiped out en masse by fiat if they present too strong an argument against the site's view. Ad-hoc censorship abounds. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calhounite (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2012 (UTC)Calhounite (talk • contribs) 19:46, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

If you have something to say that will improve the article, feel free to discuss it here. Adding your unsourced opinions would not improve the article. - SummerPhD (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I feel time has eroded the bragadocious claim "It has an active community, with over one million comments made on the site each month". There has been a huge exodus during the last two years (starting Dec 2011) when HP introduced new comment format. December 2013 sw the introduction of "validation" of your comment entries by verifying your identity through Facebook sign-up on HP. A very large percentile chose to delete accounts after that. There is no way the site has one million comments per month anymore.Ipsofactory (talk) 10:01, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

That the Huffington Post engages in rabid censorship does not register as opinion but as fact. The nature of the censorship registers as opinion, opinion widely discussed on the net. for example "The Toxic Censorship at the Huffington Post", an article that can be found on the Salon site. Not all truths neccessarily incline themselves to standards of verifiability. The Huffington Post is what it is. A rabid practicioner of old Soviet style censorship. A truth so obvious and blatant, it's not worth the effort. The article as written gives the impression that the Huffington Post site is a professional news organization site, neither left or right leaning. Nothing could be further from the truth. While it is idealogically biased, what it is mostly is an anti-American brainwashing rag. The reader leaves misinformed and a victim of spin if he/she is not at least allowed to know about its commenting policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Calhounite (talk • contribs) 15:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

They are not left or liberal. They are partisan democrat. But yes I agree that it needs to be in the article. I've also been the subject of an edit war recently because I was trying to (correctly) label the website as a tabloid. Some person apparently does not think that's acceptable even though they clearly are. Its not an insult unless you take it that way. Lots of people like reading the celeberity news. That's probably where the majority of their money actually comes from. 97.91.179.137 (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Sources please. Multiple sources if you think a description or viewpoint deserves prominence in the lede. --Ronz (talk) 21:10, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Tabloid" is likely too strong because HuffPo commentators in particular are often relatively sophisticated (albeit left/liberal) and it's not at the level of the National Enquirer. Having said that, they aren't remotely as authoritative a publication overall as, say, The Economist. There's far too much titillation and celebrity gossip for that. I've added "mass market", which is a gentle way of putting it, but there ought to be something, perhaps under "controversies" or criticism, about HuffPo's tendency to sensationalize its headlines.--Brian Dell (talk) 08:42, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned (but not emphasized) that the opinions and editorials tend to be liberal/progressive. But it needs to be carefully worded so as not to compromise Wikipedia's neutrality. Otherwise, the reader can basically make up their own mind. Cadiomals (talk) 16:07, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedis entry is to summarize the facts objectively. How can the reader "make up his own mind" without reading the HP everyday for a few months? If the HP is pro-Democrat, it is sneaky to hide this fact from people reading the wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.11.102 (talk) 04:03, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I have attempted to explain it objectively with the phrase "some still consider it to espouse liberal views." 204.29.111.2 (talk) 15:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

HuffPo was created as a reaction to the success of The Drudge Report, which Wikipedia still refers to as a "conservative, right-wing" aggregator of news. Therefore, since HuffPo was set up as a counterweight to a "conservative, right-wing" site, why is it not referred to as a "liberal, left-wing" site? Throughout Wikipedia, conservative sites, or even middle-of-the-road ones are denigrated with pejorative terms as "conservative", "right-wing", "alt-right", "partisan", etc., but liberal ones are not similarly relegated. In truth, all the major networks--ABC, CBS, NBC; plus MSNBC and CNN; plus all but a few of the major newspapers and news magazines ARE liberal. Why can't we be honest about this fact? But my attempt to write in the first sentence of the HuffPo entry was just now immediately censored by a Wiki Commisar. It should read that HuffPo is "an American liberal, left-wing" site, just as the site it mirrors--Drudge Report--is so labeled. Don't be afraid of the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:6B87:CE00:7CE3:9738:BB93:B36 (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I direct you to WP:V. Sro23 (talk) 02:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

I direct you to the Columbia Journalism Review. It's the most well respected professional journal on the subject in the country; and it's conclusions go well past what was stated here.

Those four sources are a joke? Opposing Trump doesn't put an entire website on the left wing, articles stating that they "seem to be more objective" but have "a Liberal following". I was just looking up the Huffington Post because I wanted to know who owned them after reading an article titled "5 Reasons Price Gouging Should Be Legal (Especially During Disasters)". What's leftist aboot that exactly? Opinion pieces by other news sites are a terrible source and I expected better from an alleged encyclopedia. If you're going to address political biases, try including some actual sources from the website in question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FinetalPies (talk • contribs) 04:05, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Huffington Post is Far Left

Right leaning Breitbart is labeled "far right" with no far right qualities while far left Huffington is labeled left leaning. This is why Wikipedia is not a valid source for education or anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The Truth is Now (talk • contribs) 03:23, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

It is a matter of opinion whether someone is left or right leaning and lately the borders have become a bit blurry, too, as people seek for solutions to problems. Solutions are never left or right but only appropriate or inappropriate. E.g. Trump was considered to be far right but ending the wars was leftie. Blair in the UK was considered to be left, but his policies were far right. Even if you quote a source, so what you say is regurgitated, the nowadays blurry borders are not affected. I no longer went to HuffPost at some point but went to check the German version. They were very, very leftie with their mocking of people rejecting large influx of asylum seekers. No arguments, just mocking. It did not surprise me that they went belly up when they catered for one very narrow segment of the population. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:EDDA:C851:91DB:24FC (talk) 05:10, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

I've just read this and the section above with some puzzlement. How are people defining "far left"? The "far left" in America has been characterised by small revolutionary groups such as the Weathermen, generally totally opposed to the government no matter what political party leads it. Doug Weller talk 16:26, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

In the US, the sort of groups that spring to my mind are groups like the Communist Party USA and the Socialist Labor Party of America, as well as the weathermen of course, all of which advocate for... Well, far-left positions. Any news outlet that echoes their sentiments would also be far left for obvious reasons. So I'm perfectly willing to label Huffpo "far-left" if anyone can produce sources that show they advocate for communism, state-mandated egalitarianism and left-wing populism. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

If independent reliable sources say they are far left, Wikipedia says they are far left. If independent reliable sources do not say they are far left, Wikipedia does not say they are far left.

Independent reliable sources call Breitbart "far right", "alt-right", "conspiracy oriented" and a lot of other things.

Independent reliable sources call Huffington Post "liberal". - SummerPhD^v2.0 13:57, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

The whole point is who defines which sources meet that criteria - there is liberal bias in Wikipedia even according to its own article on itself... Sources that showed themselves completely crooked and biased during the last elections seem to be considered "reliable" and "independent" here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.58.165.0 (talk) 19:01, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Unabashedly mainstream sources say Breitbart is far right: Washington Post, Newsweek, Christian Sciene Monitor, Associated Press, The Japan Times and Sydney Morning Herald. Ah, but the mainstream media is far left? Really? Only if the far right doesn't read newspapers, prefer to read far left sources or, through some sort of magic, market forces have no impact on the media.

Long story short: This article, like all other articles, is based on coverage in independent reliable sources. For this particular question, those sources are likely to be the mainstream media and the few academic articles we can find.

If you feel any of the sources used here are not reliable for the material they are cited for, feel free to discuss them here. If you feel there are other reliable sources that should be included here, feel free to discuss them here. If you feel WP:V and/or WP:IRS need to be adjusted to correct what you believe to be inherent bias, feel free to discuss those issues on the appropriate talk pages and/or at WP:PUMP. - SummerPhD^v2.0 21:18, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

"there is liberal bias in Wikipedia even according to its own article on itself... " Funny but I can't find mention of that either at Wikipedia or at Academic studies about Wikipedia. Jeh (talk) 04:36, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Whether to call HuffPost far left or left leaning depends on the sources, not just your own opinion. I cant really find any reliable sources saying HuffPost is far left and I dont see anything advocating communism on their site anyways. They seem to have a liberal bubble problem but that's about it. Wikiman5676 (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Huffington Post is definitely far left. They just published a regressive leftist article that's extremely racist against white people. Apparently liberals these days think it's racist for a newspaper in a white country to have a picture of five white women on its cover. But I bet they wouldn't complain if it only had blacks or Asians or Hispanics. Far leftists only focus on race and identity politics and bizarrely think that being racist is anti-racist. If this regressive leftist hypocrisy isn't far leftism, then nothing is: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/all-white-actress-cover-los-angeles-times-envelope_us_5a3dc12ae4b0b0e5a7a22dbd — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1:B046:7239:480B:8610:330D:DC1B (talk) 12:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Dead editions

South Africa's and Australia's editions are dead with respect to local content. It's sad.

Facebook has hoovered it all up. There is no unlimited growth, sometimes the new comes in and an old thing must give way. I watched the German edition a bit, because it is my first language, but they seemed to be clueless, mocking people with different views. They seemed to be about grafting their own bend on Germans and that of course would never fly. 2001:8003:A070:7F00:8D1A:9886:92ED:D4DA (talk) 05:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Why did this talk section get nuked?

It all still exists in the revisions and I'm not sure what the etiquette is of just, bringing all of that right back, because it was full of some very good, very unanswered questions regarding the clarity and truthfulness of this page. FinetalPies (talk) 04:27, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Not a good idea. It's all in the archives. It's archived automatically. No nefarious acts involved. Doug Weller talk 11:03, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

30 days seems awfully aggressive for a talk page that's only generated two archives over 17 years. At least use the min threads left to keep the last four or so threads. A talk page with zero threads (or only one wondering where all the others went) is kinda weird. My $.02. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 14:46, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Coverage of medical issues - timeline

HuffPost is considered reliable with regard to coverage of most subjects, but clearly has a problem with publicizing opinions promulgated by quacks. This could represent acceptance of life threatening responses. Editorial oversight seems to be historically lacking. I'll restore my reverted edits and we can deal with its retention, modification or deletion. Activist (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

political

Based on analysis of one article, Huffington post appears to be a political production; it lacks no real substance. 98.181.50.194 (talk) 10:49, 4 December 2023 (UTC)