Talk:AlterNet: Difference between revisions
rationale for deletion |
NPOV? Alternet not always liberal; contains articles strongly endorsing far-right agenda. For the sake of Wikipedia's NPOV, let's say as much in the article. |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
==Trivia== |
==Trivia== |
||
I removed this section, for several reason. (1) 'Trivia' sections are discouraged on WP (2) I am sure there are many, many cases when Alternet was mentioned by some notable people - becuase if that was not the case, then Alternet's notability would be questionable. (3) the particular reference was to Alternet's own site - a blog at that! - and was overly self-promotional. [[User:Isarig|Isarig]] 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC) |
I removed this section, for several reason. (1) 'Trivia' sections are discouraged on WP (2) I am sure there are many, many cases when Alternet was mentioned by some notable people - becuase if that was not the case, then Alternet's notability would be questionable. (3) the particular reference was to Alternet's own site - a blog at that! - and was overly self-promotional. [[User:Isarig|Isarig]] 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC) |
||
==Truly liberal, or occasionally pushing neocon talking points?== |
|||
Would it be acceptable to note that in several instances, articles within AlterNet.org appear to be written by shills with a strongly conservative agenda? |
|||
Case in point: "A Critical Look at the Forced Spread of Democracy" http://www.alternet.org/audits/82716/ The writer claims repeatedly to have a liberal/progressive agenda, but the main thrust of the article is, in order of reading, a) claiming that Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are an effort to spread democracy, b) that liberals support the idea of using force as a method of spreading democracy, and that c) liberals should NOT support the United nations. These are decidedly far right wing talking ideals, not at all liberal. |
|||
Another case in point: "If We All Started Driving Priuses, We'd Consume More Energy Than Ever Before" http://www.alternet.org/environment/84982/?page=5 which uses nonsequitor arguments to convince readers that the past few decades have been evidence to show that increased interest in alternative fuel sources and energy conservation lead to MORE fuel consumption (not less). The author's most recent book endorses free market forces in the oil industry and argues against alternative fuels like Ethanol, and is lauded by at least one pro-oil-industry lobbyist in Washington. In short, it's written like a propaganda piece for the American oil industry. |
|||
If AlterNet is not entirely the liberal/progressive news center that it claims to be, Wikipedia should take a NPOV and say so.[[Special:Contributions/61.7.138.6|61.7.138.6]] ([[User talk:61.7.138.6|talk]]) 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC) |
|||
Revision as of 03:24, 16 May 2008
Trivia
I removed this section, for several reason. (1) 'Trivia' sections are discouraged on WP (2) I am sure there are many, many cases when Alternet was mentioned by some notable people - becuase if that was not the case, then Alternet's notability would be questionable. (3) the particular reference was to Alternet's own site - a blog at that! - and was overly self-promotional. Isarig 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
Truly liberal, or occasionally pushing neocon talking points?
Would it be acceptable to note that in several instances, articles within AlterNet.org appear to be written by shills with a strongly conservative agenda?
Case in point: "A Critical Look at the Forced Spread of Democracy" http://www.alternet.org/audits/82716/ The writer claims repeatedly to have a liberal/progressive agenda, but the main thrust of the article is, in order of reading, a) claiming that Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are an effort to spread democracy, b) that liberals support the idea of using force as a method of spreading democracy, and that c) liberals should NOT support the United nations. These are decidedly far right wing talking ideals, not at all liberal.
Another case in point: "If We All Started Driving Priuses, We'd Consume More Energy Than Ever Before" http://www.alternet.org/environment/84982/?page=5 which uses nonsequitor arguments to convince readers that the past few decades have been evidence to show that increased interest in alternative fuel sources and energy conservation lead to MORE fuel consumption (not less). The author's most recent book endorses free market forces in the oil industry and argues against alternative fuels like Ethanol, and is lauded by at least one pro-oil-industry lobbyist in Washington. In short, it's written like a propaganda piece for the American oil industry.
If AlterNet is not entirely the liberal/progressive news center that it claims to be, Wikipedia should take a NPOV and say so.61.7.138.6 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)