Talk:Newsmax

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]