Talk:HuffPost

I think the table misses the point-- all their bloggers are celebs to some degree.

And I do't like how it looks. --robotwisdom 20:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I would certainly argue that it looks like crap right now, and your point about the celebrity of the bloggers is too relative to matter. If that's the problem, then I would suggest changing the header instead of destroying it. If not the tables, then you find some way to make this page look presentable.--TheGrza 20:24, May 22, 2005 (UTC)

I think it looks better without the tables, and makes more sense without them too. I don't think it's so easy to make a divide between 'celebrity' and 'non-celebrity'. Are most of the "non-celebrities" actually likely to have articles about them anytime soon? I would suggest we don't need to list them at all, it would be simpler to put "There are also many less well known personalities contributing to the Huffington Post" (or something better worded). I think it's more important to have an article saying more about what it is, and what sort of stance it takes, it's noteriety etc than having a list of names. -- Joolz 23:01, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I do think most of the 'red-link' names will have articles soon, but I haven't heard of most of them.. Nor do I really have a feel for the website as a whole, yet.--robotwisdom 23:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Self-Reference

Could you please remove the Wikipedia self-reference from the end of the second paragraph. I would have done it myself but didn't know how to word it. Evil Monkey∴Hello 00:08, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

I added small notations about both people at the bottom of the other pages. I hope to actually write their biographies soon, but it's taken care of now.--TheGrza 00:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Snarky comment

So...where's the article?

All I'm seeing is a list of loosely associated persons. -- Cyrius|✎ 22:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

We're waiting for you to write it?

My excuse for the long lists is that it's the easiest way to check who already has articles. I suspect the Wiki-correct way to list these names would be to create a category, but that wouldn't help for the names without articles. --robotwisdom 22:31, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Cyrius, therefore I've removed all the non-notables (ie, those without articles) from this page, I've also tried to divide the notables into more managable sections. I don't think that merely contributing to this blog is reason enough for people to have their own articles either. -- Joolz 23:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you understand-- first, it's a celebrities-only blog, so the red-color-link semi-celebs will all deserve entries sooner or later. Second, as new people post, if I'm going to keep the list updated I still have to check whether they have articles already-- this will be a lot more convenient if the 'red' list is still in the main article. --robotwisdom 23:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

This article shouldn't be just a list of names, it's not particularly useful to have such a list, these celebrities which thus far haven't got articles aren't really worth listing on here. I don't think that a red-link list should be maintained to make it easier on editors either. -- Joolz 08:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

After sleeping on it, I think the current subject-sort is fine (although it needs an 'activists' category), but when I get the energy I plan to re-add the 'red' names under their appropriate subjects. --robotwisdom 13:02, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Critics

So what exactly is "the point of a blog"? That comment seems rather POV. →Vik Reykja 28 June 2005 15:38 (UTC)

I've removed the critics section altogether for having no substance. No criticism about the views expressed therein, just complaints that it doesn't act like Joe Schmoe's blog. I'm surprised they're not complaining about the font used. →Vik Reykja 30 June 2005 04:51 (UTC)

Deleted the reference to Huffingtontoast for varity of reasons. The website itself doesnt even exist anymore. The paragraph was unnecessary as well; claims that the parody site "accurately parodies HuffingtonPost" and "humourous" are clearly the writer's POV. Such snark does not work well here.

Clooney

Claiming George Clooney as one of the site's celebrity bloggers warrants a big caveat. Really he should be handled separately in the body of the article, as his "blog" led to bit of a dust-up over the practices involved. --Michael Snow 18:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This is outragous a whole mention of the Huffington Report and no mention of the George Clooney scandal? Talk about big brother. Huffingto actually took quotations of past Clooney interview spliced them together and made into a blog. Clearly unethical. And even after being caught she has the brazen gall to state there is nothing wrong with it? Disgusting. What is the point of wikipedia if it is going to be so brazenly biased. Firmitas 21:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Parodies and satires

Can we finally decide whether the parody and satire links need to stay or go?

I say delete--Gdo01 19:49, 30 July 2006 (UTC)