Talk:HuffPost/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)