Talk:Zero Hedge: Difference between revisions

Removal of "libertarian or right-wing", again

First sentence states that "Zero Hedge or ZeroHedge[b] is a libertarian or right-wing financial blog" as if it was a factual statement backed by some credible reference. In fact, all three references which supposedly back up this claim only use the terms as is with no further expansion on the subject and are not even about that primarily, they are on the subject of twitter ban. A proper reference that would merit such a sentence would be an article explaining what libertarian and right-wing ideas are and give example articles from ZeroHedge to establish the connection. No such reference is given right now. At best, the sentence should be reworded to something like "Zero Hedge or ZeroHedge[b] viewed by some as libertarian or right-wing financial blog". Better, it should be removed completely as it has no credible reference.

Further scrutinizing the references:

1. Reuters article does not mention the words libertarian or right-* anywhere in the article at all. So it is not a real reference.

2. Wapo article uses the term "right-leaning" and not "right-wing". The term used in the sentence is therefore not even correctly referenced and is made up.

Based on all of the above, I am proposing removal of the terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42anonymous (talk • contribs) 08:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed already and there are lots of references for the use of the descriptors. See above↑. And there are more sources, e.g. [1], [2], and etc. And really, these unbiased, reliable sources are only reporting on what's plain to see there every day. I popped over there right now and the very first article I saw, authored by ZH staff, contains the phrase "woke leftist mob" [3], the next one I opened stated that concepts like "privilege" and "systemic racism" are "dubious" (a typical far right position) [4], the next one voices the Trumpian theme of "boosting your immune system and laugh at COVID-19" and "avoid the main stream media like the plague!" and "We Don't Need No Stinking Vaccine For COVID-19" etc. Almost every single article attacks any form of social welfare, Antifa, and Democrats. The theme is overwhelmingly far Right. So that's why the sources call ZH for what it is. How many sources can you find that call it Left-leaning? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

​After surveying the available sources, I believe the term far-right should be used in the first sentence, which is in line with the InfoWars article. Many reliable sources describe Zero Hedge as far-right:

1. "Google and Facebook Are Cracking Down on the Far Right", Vanity Fair (RSP entry)
2. "Who 'Created' Covid?", Outlook
3. "Republicans push back on Google restrictions", Fox News (RSP entry)
4. "Anti-Vax Doctor Promotes Conspiracy Theory That Death Certificates Falsely Cite COVID-19", Rolling Stone (RSP entry)
5. "Scientists Haven’t Found Proof The Coronavirus Escaped From A Lab In Wuhan. Trump Supporters Are Spreading The Rumor Anyway.", BuzzFeed News (RSP entry)
6. "How social media platforms are fighting coronavirus misinformation", CBC.ca
7. "No, Californians, you won't be fined $1,000 if you shower and do laundry the same day", The Sacramento Bee

Far-right is a subset of right-wing. Some sources also describe Zero Hedge as alt-right, a subset of far-right. Libertarianism is orthogonal to the left–right political spectrum, so the term libertarian can be used in conjunction with one of these other terms. Based on the sources, I would use far-right libertarian as the descriptors in the first sentence. (The word or is unnecessary.) — Newslinger talk 04:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

 Done. 2601:1c0:5d03:b5f0:55b5:3288:7015:52c added the far-right descriptor with another reliable source, and I added the sources listed above to support the descriptor. I've also moved libertarian to the first sentence. — Newslinger talk 00:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

I was looking for the reason why they all called this site right-wing? What is the concrete right purpose of zeroHedge? Not anyone of the article is explaining why they mark this site as right-wing. Since I am not an american, may if you critise the finance system means your are far right? Or did they spread other theories which could be named as far-right? May someone could this explaniation add to the article? --Struppi (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

According to the cited sources, Zero Hedge is considered far-right not because of its financial commentary, but because of its political commentary. For example, Zero Hedge has published far-right conspiracy theories about Black Lives Matter (see CNBC and Vanity Fair) and COVID-19 (see Outlook, Rolling Stone, BuzzFeed News, and CBC.ca). I agree that Zero Hedge § Non-financial views should be expanded with information from these cited sources. — Newslinger talk 09:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Both articles talk about the "comment section". The only concrete opinion is that Zero Hedge say "claiming that [BLM] protests were fake". That sound not as an political far right statement. And Covid-19 has nothing todo with a political wing per definition. So it seems the label "right wing" is just, because they have some positions which could also be shared by really right wing groups. Since I had some negative experience with right wing groups, I am a bit suprise which opinions and groups are labeled as right wing these days. Struppi (talk) 14:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

The cited reliable sources concluded that the nature of the content in Zero Hedge is sufficient to classify Zero Hedge as far-right. COVID-19 has become a politically charged topic in the United States, and the COVID-19 conspiracy theories that Zero Hedge has published were also published by other far-right sites, including InfoWars (RSP entry). Zero Hedge publishes far-right content and attracts a far-right audience, which amply justifies the far-right descriptor. — Newslinger talk 02:44, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Just because somebody says it is ´far-right´ doesn't mean it really is. Actually, if one actually bothered to follow it over time, one would notice it is nearly as biased as most other news media. Classification of 'far-right' implies support for Hitler, which is factually untrue. Besides, if they were wrong, would you need to censor it? So in short, this article is following the same vague name-calling that Google busies itself with. Unsubstantiated and erratic, maybe even childish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.130.206.182 (talk) 12:05, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Some users here, like User:Ratel for example gas-light us with the "consensus" excuse for reverting any contribution that goes against their bias. NEWSFLASH: there is no consensus on labeling ZeroHedge as "far-right", "conspiratorial" or "fake-news". Not here, nor in mainstream media where criticism and name-calling from all sort 3rd hand pundits is very common nowadays. Same as Big-Tech censorship, but I'm not here to explain the obvious. Research more.

Low Quality Article with Dishonest Editing

As long as this editor ("Ratel") is indulging in emotive, vague claims (that are, accordingly, inherently impossible to disprove), why not go ahead with the remaining, intellectually-bankrupt, cliche behavior and find similar references to call the website other nasty names like "racist", "xenophobic", "homophobic", and "misogynistic" ? I have found plenty of widely regarded left-wing authors (co-published on Counter-Punch, etc, such as Mike Whitney, Caitlin Johnstone, etc., just for starts) published on Zero Hedge. (Personal attack removed) Wikibearwithme (talk) 03:02, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Your personal attack on me is NOT the way to discuss the article. Regarding your claims: if you have reliable sources that say the site has a left-leaning element, please present them.Ratel 🌼 (talk) 05:12, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)Wikibearwithme (talk) 06:57, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia. Please focus on the article content. The verifiability policy requires all content on Wikipedia to be supported by reliable sources. Zero Hedge (RSP entry) is not considered a reliable source, but most of the citations in this article are. — Newslinger talk 15:45, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

This sort of selective and hypocritical application of non-objective metrics is precisely why Wikipedia is, widely, no longer considered (and certainly not in academia) "a reliable source." Enjoy your imaginary status. Wikibearwithme (talk) 08:33, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia editors are indeed selective: to ensure article quality, editors select reliable sources for citations instead of questionable sources like Zero Hedge. Since Wikipedia is not a reliable source (including for academic use), readers are advised to verify article content with the cited sources. If the cited source is a conspiracy theory blog like Zero Hedge, the content is likely to be incorrect. Wikipedia is not a forum, so unless you have policy-compliant suggestions for improving this article, your comments would be better suited for an alternative outlet such as a personal blog. — Newslinger talk 09:16, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't believe that the habit of reciting Wikipedia policy links was intended as a justification and pretext for utilizing authoritarian rhetoric. Simply ignoring the points made while making categorical, sweeping claims is not part of any respectable peer-review process. Whether you are aware of this or not, your actions speak for themselves. Wikibearwithme (talk) 21:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a system of government. Our community-authored policies and guidelines are designed to maintain article quality and protect our content from being distorted by conspiracy theory blogs like Zero Hedge. They are also designed to protect our contributors from personal attacks like yours. If you don't like these policies or guidelines, you can make your opinions heard on the talk pages of the respective project pages. On the other hand, if you want to participate in a political system, you can do that in your local neighborhood. Either way, you're not accomplishing anything by attacking other editors here. — Newslinger talk 04:21, 28 September 2020 (UTC)

Here we go with the 'it's a conspiracy!'- namecalling. That just baseless junk "science". When in fact ZH has been a news source that is calling upon issues before any other news source picks up on the story. Just because you're late.. doesn't mean "It's a conspiracy!". Also the first sentence says more about wikipedia (and some editors that want to wage edit-wars) than it says about zero-hedge ~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.130.206.182 (talk) 12:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The word far-right was cited before you deleted the citations in Special:Diff/985096664. The citations have been restored in Special:Diff/985096867. — Newslinger talk 03:37, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Be nice to get this article permanently semi-protected to stop the constant quasi-vandalism. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I submitted a protection request, but it was declined. — Newslinger talk 07:29, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I have resubmitted a temporary semi-protection request as this page seems to be constantly targeted, we'll see how it goes. ★Maxman013★^(talk) 05:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

User:Politanvm reverting any edits without consulting the sources and information edited. Biased editors like Ratel and User:Politanvm should refrain from "contributing". — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.Barbaryan (talk • contribs) 06:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

I don’t have a particular interest either way for labeling Zero Hedge as far-right, but noted that your initial edit on the page removed reliable sources and contradicted the earlier discussion on this talk page. If there are reliable secondary sources for the edits you’ve made to this page, please do include them. So far, you’ve primarily removed sources, misleadingly labeled edits as “vandalism” and left personal attacks on user talk pages. None of those actions are helpful for resolving the dispute over the content of the article. I’m not closely involved in this page, since I just came upon it during Recent Changes Patrol, so I’ll defer to Ratel’s and Newslinger’s earlier messages on this talk page. If you can address those by discussing content (not personal attacks), then perhaps there’ll be a resolution everyone is happy with. POLITANVM ^talk 06:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)