Talk:Veterans Today

Recreation

I have re-created this article, prompted by mentions of it on several pages, on too many of which it is mentioned as though it as a reliable web site. I hope that I have not created more problems with conspiracy theorists than I have solved.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:50, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Proxy site for Russia?

[1] Doug Weller talk 16:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It acts like it. However, it also publishes anti-Soviet stuff, like detailed reports on Soviet atrocities against Germans after the war, mostly about the rapes. It is possible these are independent nuts, taken up by the Kremlin because it sees more overall good to Russia than harm, in the present situation. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:B50B:AB99:6777:4B5F (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

This is a useful page

I normally research potential sources long before using them, particularly if they are recent or new. It helps to know exactly what the problem with a source is, and this entry does that. Too bad the Wikipedia deleted the South Front entry, because if it was anything like this one, it could have been helpful in terms of making a decision. And I am sorry, Mr. Weller, but Politico is as suspect as VT and New Eastern Outlook. https://www.jta.org/2017/04/10/united-states/politico-says-chabad-is-trumps-jewish-movement-not-so-fast

Judgemental article

Why do you start by defining what the site is from your own opinion? You should first start by describing the site as the site describes itself and then add any criticism you can CITE from respectable sources, instead of jumping right in with a dismissal and allegations. Has there ever been a lawsuit against the site in which they were convicted of antisemitism or whatever? If not, then change the article opening and replace it with the about section from the website itself and ONLY THEN you can regurgitate whatever slander you can find.

You cite Politico's article about VT that says: "The site’s chairman, Gordon Duff, served in the Marine Corps in Vietnam and began contributing to the site in 2008. In one 2012 interview, he stated, “About 30% of what’s written on Veterans Today, is patently false. About 40% of what I write, is at least purposely, partially false, because if I didn’t write false information I wouldn’t be alive.”

But the article doesn't provide any source for this alleged interview. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.179.71.64 (talk) 18:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

This biased article (and thousands of similar others on Wikipedia) only goes to prove VT's point.

Bias is one thing. Truth is another. As this article accurately describes this organisation, there is nothing to complain about.

It would be well to contact Politico, though, and get the source for the Duff interview. Or contact Duff and see what he says. 2A00:23C7:E287:1901:B50B:AB99:6777:4B5F (talk) 17:30, 26 June 2023 (UTC)