Talk:HuffPost

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Blogging, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.BloggingWikipedia:WikiProject BloggingTemplate:WikiProject BloggingBlogging

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)[reply]

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.--The Grza 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

AHEM!

Was this written by Huffington herself??!! I'm a big fan but it's WAY too biased, especially the references to the Drudge report and other left wing blogs:

"...the HuffPost regularly publishes scoops of current news stories, otherwise providing links to selected prominent news stories, providing a left-of-center counterpoint to the link-heavy style of The Drudge Report. Compared to other left-wing blogs such as the expertise-heavy Znet or the long-established Daily Kos, the HuffPost draws a balance between hard news commentary and coverage..."

-This is ridiculous and displays the major drawback of Wikipedia... --ALEXXXTH 1150GMT 1st March 2007

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.--The Grza 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Agreed. He's still listed as one of the bloggers for the site, and no mention of the scandal. Not only that, Huffington Post is described as a "news website". That is not accurate! It really does seem like some pro-HP person wrote this page.

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)[reply]

Perhaps the person(s) who keeps deleting that section has a non-NPOV agenda of some kind. Note that other pages have similar sections: /Drudge_Report#Parody_sites, /Instapundit#Blogs_inspired_by_Instapundit, etc. etc. etc.

Parody web sites offer nothing. These are totally unnecessary.

Will you be deleting all of the "Parodies and Satires" and similar sections from all of the other entries that have them, including those I listed above? Perhaps we should remove The Colbert Report from the O'Reilly page. Or, perhaps we should realize that this is supposed to be NPOV and thus mention both the supporters and the detractors.

Delete. A parody is an "imitation for comic effect or ridicule". Seems to me this, by definition, violates a neutral point of view. And yes, I would support removing parody references from other articles. If a parody is notable enough, it should have it's own article. Finally, NPOV is not about lining up an equal number of "good" and "bad" statements about a subject--if that's what you've got, all you've done is violated NPOV from different perspectives. Glendoremus 02:49, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOT

Wikipedia is not a list of indiscriminate information....it looks like this article is approaching this quickly. The list of all the contributors is getting pretty long. Perhaps it should be made into another article or List of contributors to the Huffington Post. Afterall, you wouldn't list all the contributors to the NY Times in the NY Times article. --MonkBirdDuke 01:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think there needs to be more substantive content in this article. I'm not against the list of contributors per se. Having notable contributors is one of the key, unique elements of the website. I think we could thin out the list by removing those who don't warrant a major wikipedia article. The analogy with the NY Times is not quite apt. The NY Times is not primarily about its contributors. Anyway - I really think there should be some more detail about the site itself. Davidpatrick 02:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy?

They've posted a lot of crazy stuff on the Huffington Post. I'm suprised that there isn't any controversy over these things. Like 911 Conspiracy crap, Deepak Chopra nonsense, etc. If there's a controversy over these kinds of articles, we have to mention it in the article. --Havermayer 08:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am thinking about adding a section called "comments controversies". A news article on the bomb assasination on the base in Afghanistan where the VP Cheney stayed and one on his poor health had comment sections with loads of death wishes and vile rants. These have been debated not just on the blogosphere but also mainstream media. Recently, comments feature on several Cheney-related articles have been disabled.And another thing - the current article is quite dull and list-like. We need to list ALL columnists and bloggers of HuffPo? Medico80 10:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The controversies are not just in the comments. The pseudoscience, the anti-vaccination and anti-evolution rants etc. are pretty well known amongst scientific bloggers. Warrants a mention, surely?

Turlington

Hello? Why isn't Christy Turlington's name listed as one of the bloggers?!

How to blog?

I don't see anything here about how one becomes a Huffington Post blogger. Is it strictly by invitation only? Is there an application/audition process? Who gets invited and why? ChrisStansfield 19:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to list

Just wanted to explain my revision here- I changed the categories from "what people are" to different industries, since a lot of the people there do more than one thing and since, by definition, they're all writers by virtue of being on the HuffPo. I thought it was more important to show the variety of professional backgrounds the bloggers come from. Some of the people and the categories they belong to are arguable since several people could arguably fit in one or more groups to a certain degree. Ultimately, I went with what the person is best known for- people might dispute putting Cronkite in the "Broadcasting" section rather than journalism, for example, but since his actual reporting/print media career is so small compared to his anchoring career (remember, he came from the days when newsreaders did less of their own investigation) I thought it apropo that he be recognized for his contributions to television rather than journalism. Likewise, Tavis Smileyhas certainly authored books, but the average man on the street knows him from his talk show more than anything. So there he went. I also edited some links that were pointing to the wrong people, and perhaps most controversially, deleted quite a few of the red-linked names. Anyone who was redlinked who was not mentioned in any other WP articles got deleted, as were anyone whose greatest notability comes from HuffPo blogging (which makes the concept of "notable contributors" pretty circular.ChrisStansfield ^Contribs 22:36, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of date

Tagged as out of date. The logo is old, there's a reference to 2006 as present-day, etc. I'm sure the contributors list has changed considerably, too. 68.165.76.80 (talk) 21:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]