Talk:Newsmax: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 23:48, 19 November 2024

Humanix Books was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 20 November 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Newsmax. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Newsmax 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, 2, 3: 6 months

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.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, 7 July 2016, see discussion.
speedy keep, 26 July 2006, see discussion.

Conservatism Low‑importance

	Conservatism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism 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.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Miami Low‑importance

	This article is part of WikiProject Miami, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Miami metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.MiamiWikipedia:WikiProject MiamiTemplate:WikiProject MiamiMiami
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics: American Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

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
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

The following references may be useful when improving this article in the future:

Goss, Brian Michael (2023). "Introducing Sham Journalism: A Case-Study Analysis of Newsmax' Discourse on Special Counsel John Durham in 2022". Journalism Practice: 1–19. doi:10.1080/17512786.2023.2202194.

Propaganda

This article page is half true and half propaganda. Stop letting them confuse you. 73.248.3.30 (talk) 21:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, but which half? soibangla (talk) 21:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if Newsmax is far-right, that would make CNN far-left. Yet the page for CNN is not described as such. This here is the very reason why Wikipedia is for entertainment and not reliable source and rejected by major academia. 39.15.58.57 (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"if Newsmax is far-right, that would make CNN far-left." Do you even know what these terms mean? Dimadick (talk) 10:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal with edit reason that had no relation

This edit removed large amount of content with edit reason that nothing to do with the content that was removed.2001:8003:34A3:800:A9EA:6A17:ED7:A25A (talk) 11:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch. Now restored. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 14:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really news?

a media company employing current congress people to promote their opinions is not news. In fact, I don't see a single journalist amongst their content. Any current events are discussed through a conservative lens and not reported as is. (IE Like you see on the local news about breaking news or summary of the day's events).

Just seems like this is another attempt to hide conservative Propaganda under the guise of "news"... similar to info wars or brietbart 2601:401:501:950:C011:F63:7F69:3C2F (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Citations supporting usage of conservative, right wing, etc

The first 36 citations are out of order. Sources using "right wing" are in the group cited as using "conservative" and vice versa, so on. It may also be worthwhile to pull the relevant quote from every source and add it to the citation text (currently some do this). I'm not entirely familiar with the template used for these citation groups, so if someone else wants to step in, please do. But I'm going to work on it. Moran Wright (talk) 15:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you FMSky! Moran Wright (talk) 21:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Im still not 100% sure if its completely fixed though, could you maybe look again --FMSky (talk) 21:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I will go through them. I believe I understand the coding on these grouped citations, and the quotes. I'll try to do the fixes myself an let you know when I'm done. Moran Wright (talk) 14:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History

I made some minor edits to the 2009-10 period which now ends

"closing 2009 with $36 million revenues, up from $25 million the year before. A 2010 New York Post story reported that the paper's long-time former editor Kenneth Chandler would become Newsmax Magazine's editor-in-chief. Earlier Ruddy had told Business Insider the company expected annual 2010 revenues to reach $50 million."

but wonder if there should be more radical editing there and for other periods. Mcljlm (talk) 01:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{afd-merged-from|Humanix Books|Humanix Books|20 November 2023}}
-{{ds/talk notice|ap}}
+{{Talk header}}
-{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=No|1=
+{{Contentious topics/talk notice|ap}}
-{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=Start|importance=Low}}
+{{Old XfD multi
-{{WikiProject Journalism|class=Start|importance=Low}}
+| date = 26 July 2006
-{{WikiProject Miami|class=Start|importance=Low}}
+| result = '''speedy keep'''
-{{WikiProject Politics|class=Start|importance=Low|American=Yes|American-importance=low}}
+| page= NewsMax Media
-{{WikiProject Websites|class=Start|importance=Low}}
+| date2 = 7 July 2016
+| result2 = '''keep'''
+| page2 = Newsmax
 }}
+{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=No|class=Start|1=
+{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Journalism|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Miami|importance=Low}}
+{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=Yes|American-importance=low}}
+{{WikiProject Websites|importance=Low}}
+}}
+{{Merged-from|Newsmax Media|15 February 2021}}
 {{annual readership|scale=log}}
+{{User:MiszaBot/config
-{{Old AfD multi | date = 7 July 2016 | result = '''keep''' | page = Newsmax}}
+| algo = old(180d)
+| archive = Talk:Newsmax/Archive %(counter)d
-== External links modified (February 2018) ==
+| counter = 3
+| maxarchivesize = 100K
-Hello fellow Wikipedians,
+| archiveheader = {{Aan}}
+| minthreadstoarchive = 1
-I have just modified one external link on [[Newsmax]]. Please take a moment to review [[special:diff/826243037|my edit]]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:
+| minthreadsleft = 5
-*Added archive https://archive.is/20101018052032/http://www.page2live.com/2010/08/16/bill-clintons-surprise-visit-to-conservative-newsmax/ to http://www.page2live.com/2010/08/16/bill-clintons-surprise-visit-to-conservative-newsmax/
+}}
+{{Refideas|{{Cite journal |last=Goss |first=Brian Michael |date=2023 |title=Introducing Sham Journalism: A Case-Study Analysis of Newsmax’ Discourse on Special Counsel John Durham in 2022 |url=https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512786.2023.2202194 |journal=Journalism Practice |volume= |issue= |pages=1-19 |doi=10.1080/17512786.2023.2202194 }}}}
-When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
-{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}
-Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 01:29, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
-== Is it necessary to list the channel numbers? ==
-I came here while researching the outlet on my cable provider, WOW! (WideOpenWest), and decided to scroll down the area speaking about the TV channel... I understand they don't want the section to appear scant of detail, but this doesn't seem like the sort of information needed in a Wikipedia article. Surely with the channel being here for as long as it has been (if I read correctly, four years?), there should be more relevant information available by now? It shouldn't be Wikipedia's place to be a TV guide.
-[[User:RabblerouserGT|RabblerouserGT]] ([[User talk:RabblerouserGT|talk]]) 11:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
-== There are way too many Newsmax sub-articles ==
-All the content should be in this article. [[User:Snooganssnoogans|Snooganssnoogans]] ([[User talk:Snooganssnoogans|talk]]) 17:08, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
-== Quoting itself? ==
-The (currently) second end-note, the one cited where the claim is made that Newsmax is influential among conservatives, links back to Newsmax itself. So, basically, the source saying that Newsmax is influential is ... Newsmax. That doesn't seem to pass the journalistic smell test.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/67.212.120.189|67.212.120.189]] ([[User talk:67.212.120.189#top|talk]]) 02:04, 4 September 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
-== "There is no consensus on the reliability of Media Matters" ==
-As a biased or opinionated source, their statements should be attributed."
-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
-this edit should be restored
-https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Newsmax&diff=982567017&oldid=981840801
+== Propaganda  ==
-[[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:24, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
-:The reason for removal was not that biased or opinionated sources can never be used, but that there is no [[WP:RS]] coverage of this or anything to establish encyclopedic notability. It would be unencyclopedic to add everything that Media Matters ever writes about a topic to the Wikipedia article, there needs to be other coverage as well. [[User:Marquis de Faux|Marquis de Faux]] ([[User talk:Marquis de Faux|talk]]) 22:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
-::I question that reasoning simply because organizations commonly get scoops. In an increasingly fragmented media environment, organizations often need to pursue niche stories that distinguish themselves. Others don't cover it not because it's illegitimate,  but because someone else grabbed that niche and there's no compelling reason to follow, they need to pursue other niches. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 23:02, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
+This article page is half true and half propaganda. Stop letting them confuse you. [[Special:Contributions/73.248.3.30|73.248.3.30]] ([[User talk:73.248.3.30|talk]]) 21:23, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
-== Do we need this article AND Newsmax Media? ==
+:OK, but which half? [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 21:30, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
+::if Newsmax is far-right, that would make CNN far-left. Yet the page for CNN is not described as such. This here is the very reason why Wikipedia is for entertainment and not reliable source and rejected by major academia. [[Special:Contributions/39.15.58.57|39.15.58.57]] ([[User talk:39.15.58.57|talk]]) 03:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
+:::"if Newsmax is far-right, that would make CNN far-left." Do you even know what these terms mean? [[User:Dimadick|Dimadick]] ([[User talk:Dimadick|talk]]) 10:43, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
+== Removal with edit reason that had no relation ==
-I think the latter should be deleted. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 00:57, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
-:Agreed, articles should be merged. [[User:Marquis de Faux|Marquis de Faux]] ([[User talk:Marquis de Faux|talk]]) 23:50, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
-::[[Newsmax TV]] could probably be merged as well. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 16:15, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+[https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Newsmax&diff=prev&oldid=1160046464 This edit] removed large amount of content with edit reason that nothing to do with the content that was removed.[[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:34A3:800:A9EA:6A17:ED7:A25A|2001:8003:34A3:800:A9EA:6A17:ED7:A25A]] ([[User talk:2001:8003:34A3:800:A9EA:6A17:ED7:A25A|talk]]) 11:22, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
-== Justification ==
+: Good catch. Now restored. -- [[User:Valjean|Valjean]] ([[User talk:Valjean|talk]]) ('''''[[Help:Notifications|<span style="color:#0bf">PING me</span>]]''''') 14:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
+== Is it really news? ==
-I have an issue with the statement "Newsmax CEO Christopher Ruddy justified its pro-Trump coverage, saying 'we have an editorial policy of being supportive of the President and his policies.'".
-:First, the "." being included in the quote is inaccurate, the actual quote has a comma there and reads "We have an editorial policy of being supportive of the President and his policies, but I think if you looked at our digital coverage, for instance, it's always been very balanced and fair."
+a media company employing current congress people to promote their opinions is not news. In fact, I don't see a single journalist amongst their content. Any current events are discussed through a conservative lens and not reported as is. (IE Like you see on the local news about breaking news or summary of the day's events).
-:More importantly, this is not a "justification" of its pro-Trump coverage, it is if anything a denial that they are overly pro-Trump (spoiler, RS have said that they absolutely are overly pro-Trump).
-::It is also an answer to a question about other media organizations', specifically Fox News, consistency: "You have said that you think Fox News was inconsistent in its support of Trump during the past four years. How so? And do you think that being unwavering in support of either Donald Trump or the Republican Party is important to conservative media?"
-:He is not asked to, nor is attempting to, "Justify" the network's support of Trump.
+Just seems like this is another attempt to hide conservative Propaganda under the guise of "news"... similar to info wars or brietbart [[Special:Contributions/2601:401:501:950:C011:F63:7F69:3C2F|2601:401:501:950:C011:F63:7F69:3C2F]] ([[User talk:2601:401:501:950:C011:F63:7F69:3C2F|talk]]) 00:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
-:On the other hand, the other quote, which was removed first by [[User:Marquis de Faux|Marquis de Faux]], and again by [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]], was in fact stated as a justification for why Newsmax has become a explicitly pro-Trump outlet, despite its founder being "not the sort of true-believing ideologue his viewers may imagine in the foxhole alongside them".
-::The context is this: "All successful TV programmers have some mercenary in them, of course, but even by those standards, Mr. Ruddy is extreme. He has turned Newsmax into a pure vehicle for Trumpism, attacking Fox News from the right for including occasional dissenting voices. And when Trumpism turned this month from an electoral strategy into a hallucinatory attempt to overturn the election, Mr. Ruddy saw opportunity: Newsmax, available on cable in most American households and streaming online, became the home of alternate reality. 'In this day and age, people want something that tends to affirm their views and opinions,' Mr. Ruddy told me in an interview."
-:He is "justifying" why Newsmax is "a pure vehicle for Trumpism" despite his personal views not fully embodying that. It is emphasizing "He is, rather, perhaps the purest embodiment of another classic television type, the revenue-minded cynic for whom the substance of programming is just a path to money and power."
+== Citations supporting usage of conservative, right wing, etc ==
-:The first quote is not a justification. It just says "He justifies them being pro-Trump by saying they are pro-Trump".
+The first 36 citations are out of order. Sources using "right wing" are in the group cited as using "conservative" and vice versa, so on.
-:The second quote is a justification. It says "He justifies them being pro-Trump by saying their audience is pro-Trump and people want to watch things that affirm that view".
+It may also be worthwhile to pull the relevant quote from every source and add it to the citation text (currently some do this).
-Does that make sense? The problem arises out of the fact that the "justified" language is a summation of the sentiment presented in the NY times article with the second quote. The first quote comes from a source that does not support using the word "justified" because that is not the context in which it was stated. [[User:NonReproBlue|NonReproBlue]] ([[User talk:NonReproBlue|talk]]) 06:46, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
-:Could you please break this into readable paragraphs? [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 16:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+I'm not entirely familiar with the template used for these citation groups, so if someone else wants to step in, please do. But I'm going to work on it. [[User:Moran Wright|Moran Wright]] ([[User talk:Moran Wright|talk]]) 15:14, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
-::{{reply|NonReproBlue}} Thank you for breaking it out into paragraphs. The quotation about the editorial policy is a response to the question ''"And do you think that being unwavering in support of either Donald Trump or the Republican Party is important to conservative media?"'' from the New Yorker, so I think it's pretty clear. However, the NY Times article doesn't contain the same language, so I've made a trial edit at including both quotes. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 18:13, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
-:I would be happy to include the quote in the body paragraph. The lead, however, is supposed to be a general overview, and cover things such as editorial policy of an organization. That's why the initial quote was fairly appropriate. This seems like getting into the weeds of media strategy, and in the paragraph where he gives this quote, he doesn't use it as a way to "justify" the editorial stance either, it's just as a statement of commentary on the state of media. There's absolutely no context in which the quote is given, nor a response to a question, or anything, nor does the article say that. We don't know what Ruddy was responding to, so you can't say that the quote is a "justification" for it's election coverage, because the source doesn't show that. There is no evidence that the quote was uttered with the intention of "justifying" the coverage.
-:This would be like, on the Fox News page, having a Roger Ailes quote at the top talking about how being conservative increases ad revenue. It could be true, and should be mentioned in the body, but wouldn't be appropriate for a lead summary. Rather, the lead would just cover how Fox News is editorially conservative. If the concern is the word "justification," we can just take that out and leave the quote about being editorially in support of Trump.
-:[[User:Marquis de Faux|Marquis de Faux]] ([[User talk:Marquis de Faux|talk]]) 20:41, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
+:Thank you FMSky! [[User:Moran Wright|Moran Wright]] ([[User talk:Moran Wright|talk]]) 21:44, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
+::Im still not 100% sure if its completely fixed though, could you maybe look again --[[User:FMSky|FMSky]] ([[User talk:FMSky|talk]]) 21:59, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
+:::Yes, I will go through them. I believe I understand the coding on these grouped citations, and the quotes. I'll try to do the fixes myself an let you know when I'm done. [[User:Moran Wright|Moran Wright]] ([[User talk:Moran Wright|talk]]) 14:00, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
+== History ==
-==Proposed merge ([[Newsmax Media]] to Newsmax) ==
-The [[Newsmax Media]] article is largely repetitive of content already here and there is very little there about the Newsmax Media entity that isn't already in this article. [[User:Laval|Laval]] ([[User talk:Laval|talk]]) 19:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Support proposed merge'''. Given the high levels of redundancy, the "Newsmax Media" article is counterproductive. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 20:54, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Support proposed merge'''. Quick and easy merge. Should just delete the other redundant article. [[User:Marquis de Faux|Marquis de Faux]] ([[User talk:Marquis de Faux|talk]]) 04:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Support proposed merge'''. Reason: As Laval stated above. [[User:Tshuva|Tshuva]] ([[User talk:Tshuva|talk]]) 10:41, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
-:::Hi {{reply|Tshuva}}, per RFC policy concerning !votes, can you provide a reasoning? [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 04:34, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-::::Added [[User:Tshuva|Tshuva]] ([[User talk:Tshuva|talk]]) 06:26, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-* '''Support''', per previous thread. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Support merge'''. As the articles stand there is a huge amount of duplicative content; no size issues necessitating separate articles. <sub>[[User:Wjemather|<span style="color:#0D5218">wjemather</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Wjemather|<span style="color:#520D0D">please leave a message...</span>]]</sup> 16:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
+I made some minor edits to the 2009-10 period which now ends
-== Proposed merge ([[Newsmax TV]] to Newsmax) ==
+"closing 2009 with $36 million revenues, up from $25 million the year before. A 2010 New York Post story reported that the paper's long-time former editor Kenneth Chandler would become Newsmax Magazine's editor-in-chief. Earlier Ruddy had told ''[[Business Insider]]'' the company expected annual 2010 revenues to reach $50 million."
-Similar to the discussion of merging [[Newsmax Media]] above, I think it's basically merged already. The talk page has had the "Under Construction" section, placed by AKA Casey Rollins, begging "Please do not delete this page! I am still working on it" since 20 October 2014 with little to no improvement. Further, upon reviewing the sources on the page (even after Aquillion's recent attempt to add two sources), it's basically a poorly written copy of material already here:
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]]. (Roose, "Newsmax courts fox news viewers...")
-# This article isn't cited at [[Newsmax]] but it really doesn't matter, Business Insider is at "No Consensus" level at [[Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources]]. (Lahut, "Newsmax CEO says...")
-# This article isn't cited at [[Newsmax]] but multiple other articles about ratings are. (Tampa Bay Times, "Trump-friendly Newsmax a sudden competitor to Fox...")
-# This specific article is not reflected at [[Newsmax]], but an equivalent article from Politico on the DirecTV launch of Newsmax's channel is.
-# Does not seem to be a [[WP:RS]], and it's a dead link that reverts to the multichannel.com homepage.
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]]. ("South Florida's Newsmax rides wave of interest...")
-# This Sara Polsky article from "Curbed NY" does not mention Newsmax in any way. I have no idea why anyone put it into the page.
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]]. ("Newsmax hopes conservative anger...")
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]]. ("The Next Ailes: Newsmax's Chris Ruddy ...")
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]]. (""Newsmax has emerged as a landing spot for cable news personalities...")
-# This is self-sourced to Newsmax.com and is not [[WP:RS]]. ("Dennis Michael Lynch Hosts New Show"...)
-# This is to Mediaite, a "marginally reliable" source. ("Newsmax Host Taken Off the Air...")
-# This is a good [[WP:RS]], and the content is not yet reflected at [[Newsmax]]. It is already reflected at [[Dennis Michael Lynch]]. ("Newsmax Host Dennis Michael Lynch Is Pulled Off the Air...")
-# This is sourced direct back to Newsmax's website, promotional content only. (Howie Carr)
-# Notations on Spicer joining Newsmax are already reflected at [[Newsmax]]
-# Notations on Greg Kelly at Newsmax are already reflected at [[Newsmax]]
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]] ("Trump voters are flocking...")
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]] (""Donald Trump attacks Fox News: 'They forgot the golden goose'")
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]] '''(and is a duplicate of number 8)'''. ("Newsmax hopes conservative anger...")
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]] ("Newsmax could end up being the Fox News of the post-Trump era")
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]] '''(and is a duplicate of number 17)'''. ("Trump voters are flocking...")
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]] ("My two days watching Newsmax...")
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]] ("The misinformation media machine...")
-# This article is already reflected at [[Newsmax]] '''(and is again a duplicate of number 17)'''. ("Trump voters are flocking...")
-# This specific article is not reflected at [[Newsmax]], but equivalent coverage of ratings by AdWeek is.
-# This is sourced to hermancain.com and is laughably not [[WP:RS]]. (Calabrese)
-# Once again, just promotional material. I don't see the point of citing to the Newsmax's website, it's not [[WP:RS]]. (Newsmax website)
+but wonder if there should be more radical editing there and for other periods. [[User:Mcljlm|Mcljlm]] ([[User talk:Mcljlm|talk]]) 01:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
-The merging has basically already been done. There's literally only one decent WP:RS source whose content isn't already reflected at the main Newsmax page, and that ONE is only about a specific host leaving the network over editorial-control disputes. I think it's time to finish the merge process and redirect [[Newsmax TV]] to [[Newsmax]]. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 18:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)
-:*'''Support proposed merge''' for given reasons in the thread. [[User:Marquis de Faux|Marquis de Faux]] ([[User talk:Marquis de Faux|talk]]) 23:18, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
-:::{{reply|Marquis de Faux}} not to be a nuisance about it but... can you provide your reason? [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 00:28, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-::::Yep, sorry [[User:Marquis de Faux|Marquis de Faux]] ([[User talk:Marquis de Faux|talk]]) 02:43, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-* '''Support''', per previous thread. [[User:Soibangla|soibangla]] ([[User talk:Soibangla|talk]]) 01:53, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-* '''Support'''.  Most of the text is redundant, and the text that ''isn't'' redundant (the personalities and affiliates lists) are both largely unsourced and mostly lists of trivia. --[[User:Aquillion|Aquillion]] ([[User talk:Aquillion|talk]]) 11:23, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' - as this discussion is now moot since there was a much broader discussion at AfD which resulted in a decision of keep, rather than merge. [[User:onel5969|'''<span style="color:#536895;">Onel</span><span style="color:#ffb300;">5969</span>''']] <sup>[[User talk:Onel5969|<i style="color:blue">TT me</i>]]</sup> 12:41, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Oppose''' - For the already mentioned reasons as well as just for the record (Newsmax didn't start out as a TV network. It's A-historic for Wikipedia to all of a sudden falsify the record. The website has history. So it can stand on its own even if the entire organization shuts down. But if it merges into a TV page the non-tv media history that predates the TV will eventually be slashed and virtually edited out of existence as the TV side of the business becomes more notable and leads to expansion of the page. Then we'll be back to square one: someone will suggest a page split and non tv stuff to be put in another page. [[User:Loginnigol|--Loginnigol]] ([[User talk:Loginnigol|talk]]) 16:30, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
-::It sounds like you are confused, it would be the TV page merged to here by this proposal, as the TV page is so sparse on information and does not do a good job establishing notability separate from the Newsmax media company. Most of the sources used in the TV page treat the two interchangeably. [[User:IHateAccounts|IHateAccounts]] ([[User talk:IHateAccounts|talk]]) 17:11, 18 December 2020 (UTC)
-*'''Support merge'''. As the articles stand there is a huge amount of duplicative content and it appears the boundaries between mediums are somewhat blurred/confused; no size issues necessitating separate articles. <sub>[[User:Wjemather|<span style="color:#0D5218">wjemather</span>]]</sub><sup>[[User talk:Wjemather|<span style="color:#520D0D">please leave a message...</span>]]</sup> 16:04, 28 December 2020 (UTC)