Talk:NewsMax Media/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Á==Yes== Yes, NewsMax published an incorrect story about Kerry giving the bird to a fellow Vietnam veteran (http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/5/31/225546.shtml). They started that rumor where it was picked up by Drudge, FR and later Fox News before it was discredited.

Contents

Kerry Finger

Did it publish a fake photo of Kerry giving the finger? Of course Newsmax is biased. It is a point of view news source. While it isn't as vile as the original wiki article makes it out to be, the claim that Newsmax is POV neutral is not true. Their stories lack credibility, the wires don't pick them up, and they can't be cited in argument. It's not news, it's analysis with a conservative angle.

No Bias

There is no POV on the page, rather solid facts demonstrating the questionable stories that the site routinely offers. The article offers 4 clear cases on incorrect stories, which is only a fraction of what could be posted. If someone doesn't like that NewsMax has provided false information this isn't the place to rewrite their mistakes. They make no retractions on their false claims for obvious reasons. Please stop editting things because you don't agree with it. (Same as goes for the WorldNetDaily article.)

Sorry, Wikipedia adds information in a NPOV manner which is hardly what you are doing, if you do not cease in adding POV content it will be cited as vandalism and you will be blocked. However if you read WP:NPOV you may learn how to contribute as a helpful member of the community, regards Derktar 02:24, 3 December 2005 (UTC).


    • You taking sections down that you disagree with is vandalism as well. Ignoring the negative aspects of something is a POV, a very misleading one at that. It is rewriting the credentials of a source that has proved time and time again that is provides false information to attack those that don't agree with their ideology. If you notice you are the only one who has a problem with it. Moreover, a new article was started to satisfy your problem, it is a section devoted to misinformation. No POV, just pure unretracted claims cited with NewsMax's own links.
    • From your link about neutrality, Articles without bias describe debates fairly instead of advocating any side of the debate. You taking down sections you disagree with deletes the debate instead of describing it. There is a debate on whether the cite is a legitimate news source and that debate is done with facts.
    • And The neutral point of view attempts to present ideas and facts in such a fashion that both supporters and opponents can agree. See the word "facts," if someone is misleading those facts cited, you have a complaint. If not, then you just dont want critical anaylsis of the source in question. That is bias.
That's funny since many of the users on the AFD of the Newsmax information page agreed that it was full of POV. I'm not against facts, but they have to be put in such a way that the reader can make up his own mind. Derktar 00:02, 15 December 2005 (UTC).

Readded pov please review

Words like ultra-conservative, baseless, and phrases like "because many "describe Ruddy as 'a very heavy breather' whose book contained 'very few direct quotes, but a great many insinuations" without extensive references make me nervous about the pov of this article. Just so you know I am a liberal and so am not a conservative defending another conservative publication. We can provide the facts without the coloring and let the readers decide for themselves. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 07:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

According to the page, that is a quote referenced [1] at the Washington Post and stated, "The Spectator's review of the book, by John Corry, a former New York Times reporter, described Ruddy as "a very heavy breather" whose book contained "very few direct quotes, but a great many insinuations."
Ok that's one however the articles and one problem I have is with the word because many instead how about saying the
According to the Washington Post, "The Spectator's review of the book, by John Corry, a former New York Times reporter,
described Ruddy as "a very heavy  breather" whose book contained "very few direct quotes, but a great many insinuations.""

Most importantly the context of the quote discusses Ruddy's book "The Strange Death of Vincent Foster: An Investigation," which states that Clinton had Foster killed because of Whitewater. Such a claim is a conspiracy that has never been proved and people such as Ken Starr (who went after Clinton for anything he could) vindicated Clinton. Foster killed himself for personal issues and cases around Whitewater proved Clinton was innocent. Ruddy did not care for the facts.

In sum, as noted, Ann Coulter even thought the book by Ruddy was discredited. Such background around the founder, CEO, and editor of NewsMax is important to know. It may appear to be slanted, but unless there is proof that several grand juries, investigations, witnesses, and documents are wrong about Foster and Whitewater, in the end Ruddy's (the founder, CEO, and editor of NewsMax) work had 'very few direct quotes, but a great many insinuations.

Details

I am not saying that the quoted comments are imbalanced or biased. Instead what I am suggesting is that adjectives used in the article to describe terms be made neutral.

Examples:

Original word >>

Suggested replacement
ultra-conservative >> conservative
...the project created unease with the rank of conservatives because many >> ...the project created unease with the ranks of conservatives. According to the Washington Post,
unabashedly right-wing >> right-wing
Many people have accused NewsMax of being a hub of >> NewsMax has been accused of being a hub of
Newsmax started an rumor >> Newsmax was the source for a rumor
printed a smear article titled >> printed a inaccurate article titled

I think those changes would resolve my pov issues. I would have made them myself however I wanted to discuss it first. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 09:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Since no comments were made referencing my pov issues positive or negitive I decided to go ahead and make the changes I detailed above. -- SusanLarson (User Talk, New talk, Contribs) 04:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

NewsMax misinformation merged here

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NewsMax misinformation. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

email recived on helpdesk

Juding by an email I recived on the helpdesk NewsMax.com object to the content of this article and may be planning to change it. Please be nice to them.Geni

What exactly do they object to? Have they proposed changes? I have reverted some blanking that reads like an ad for the website. Arbustoo 21:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

useful?

Coretta Scott King

"Oh, the Inconvenience! Oh, the Humanity!

Someone brought up the possibility of a devastating consequence of the new security measures at our airports. Coretta Scott King may actually have to go through airport security at Hartsfield!

Many of you don't know it, but Atlanta taxpayers pay for almost 24-hour police "protection" for Coretta. When she flies out of town she gets a police escort to the airport – through the gate – out on the tarmac – and right to the airplane. When she gets on the airplane, her traveling aide informs the flight attendants that they are not permitted to speak directly to Mrs. King. They are to relay their instructions and their questions to the aide, who will then speak with Ms. King and respond on her behalf. I've talked to people who have been told to get off an elevator because Mrs. King wished to use it and didn't want anyone else on the elevator with her." [2]

Removal of press release and repetition of false claims

An anonymous contributor added a press release which of course has no place in an encyclopedia. In addition, the repetiton of false claims is now removed. When claims are demonstrably false, it serves no purpose to repeat the falsehoods, except to spread what is said to be false. skywriter 03:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Protection

This article has been stubbed and protected pending resolution of POV issues. Danny 19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

They cant very well be resolved when hardly anyone can edit it, can they? Are you using WP:OFFICE here, or protecting anything you don't like the look of? -Splashtalk 15:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Marshmallow spines - Xed 17:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I've unprotected it, please be explicit when using WP:OFFICE. Otherwise I assume this was a normal administrative action, which would be inappropriate.--Eloquence* 17:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree completely with Eloquence. When WP:OFFICE is not cited, Danny is just another admin, and as such, this is an inappropriate protection. Danny, when I first complained about WP:OFFICE on Jack Thompson, it was because there was not enough transparency. You have apparently reacted by further removing what transparency there was. This is not acceptable, and I find it completely unacceptable that you have de-opped and indefinitely blocked Eloquence for doing, without a WP:OFFICE citation, nothing wrong. --Golbez 19:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
Let's all take a deep breath. Eloquence probably made a mistake. Danny overreacted. Let's act like adults, declare a "do over", and let everyone make better choices on the next go-around. -- strom (unbiased, non-article-contributing #wikipedia idler/dispute-settler)

Appearently Danny protected the page as an office action, as it's project page states. However, the protected template was a normal template. Just to make it more clear for those who may unprotect on accident, I changed the template to {{office}}. --LBMixPro<Speak|on|it!> 02:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that office actions must be hidden in a cloak of secrecy now. Danny know's what's best for wikipedia and no one else can question that now. I've seen signs of a darkening wikipedia for a long time and my beliefs have been confirmed.--God Ω War 08:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, being the #17 most visited site on the Internet means that you attract a lot of attention, and some of the people whose attention you have have (a) lots of money and (b) lawyers. Hence, there are going to be situations where the needs to protect the Foundation, which generously provides you with this playground in which to run around in and have fun, require that things happen that cannot be publicly explained to you. If you don't like it, go find another playground. Kelly Martin (talk) 10:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm still curious what kind of harm the office tag could do to this project, tho. Where's the difference between a protected substub and an officially protected substub? --Conti|✉ 13:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


Factual Corrections about NewsMax corporation - since my name was used in the original posting about NewsMax, I believe I'm entitled to advise readers of factual errors made by the poster while leaving his issues of bias to others to address.

NewsMax was founded by its President Christoper Ruddy and its then Chairman Dana Allen as Sequoia Digital Corporation on August 20, 1998 (source: Florida Department of State), NOT all the people listed on the original posting. The name of the company was changed to NewsMax.com, Inc. on July 20, 1999 and then to NewsMax Media, Inc. on September 20, 2001.

Most of the people incorrectly listed as "founders" on the originaL post were the Directors of the corporation, plus Kevin Timpy, who was a publishing executive hired as Chief Operating Officer and Bruce Lonic, who was hired as Chief Financial Officer. Neither Timpy nor Lonic were ever "founders", but rather professional executives hired under employment contracts for limited periods and are no longer associated with the company. The SEC filing referenced as the source clearly identified them as officers of the company, not founders.

Of the four people, including myself, listed as the "Board", all except Cunningham were actually "Advisory Board" members, not members of the Board of Directors responsible for the policy of the corporation. Whoever summarized the SEC information did not do a good job of summarizing the facts correctly.

I am no longer affiliated with NewsMax, and I am not responding on behalf of NewsMax. Rather, I'm trying to set the record straight. Submitted by Al Hirsch. 70.148.178.7 15:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I had previously looked up the SEC documents from which the long revision was drawn and found the claims based on the SEC document did not amount to squat because the company later withdrew its offer to go public. In other words, NewsMax claims --copied to Wikipedia-- were not tested in the market place. Based on what Al Hirsch has said, it is apparent the documents filed with the SEC contain false statements. The anonymous editor who added the junk neglected the full history, which necessarily would have included the withdrawal of the company's offer to go public. I had been meaning to correct the grandiose claims previously made in this article based on the withdrawal but lacked time. skywriter 16:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)