Talk:Newsmax TV

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Newsmax TV 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

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 on 6 December 2020. The result of the discussion was keep.

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 articles
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 articles
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 articles
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).

Television: Stations Low‑importance

	Television portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Television, a collaborative effort to develop and improve Wikipedia articles about television programs. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page where you can join the discussion. To improve this article, please refer to the style guidelines for the type of work.TelevisionWikipedia:WikiProject TelevisionTemplate:WikiProject Televisiontelevision articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Television stations task force (assessed as Low-importance).

United States: Television Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Television portal This article is supported by American television task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Daily pageviews of this article

A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Under Construction[edit]

Please do not delete this page! I am still working on it! Feel free to add to it as I have labelled it a stub. When it is big enough please remove the stub label. I am going to add a section about 1. The history of Newsmax TV and 2. the shows and hosts. --User:AKA Casey Rollins AKA Casey Rollins (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please try to find more sources, especially third-party commentary from major press. It helps the article and improves its quality. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 15:09, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Newsmax Media[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Merger proposal closed; TV station and website are separate entities

The TV station and Newsmax Media are part of the same company, and there is scarcely any news that I run across about just the TV station. Probably best to merge the two articles. ★NealMcB★ (talk) 00:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose One entity is a website with the requisite website categories (and needs a major WP:RESCUE). This is a TV network with TV network templates, categories, and information. 'Lack of information' about a network isn't a good enough reason to merge an article; if so all the NBCU networks would be under the same clumsy article because the only time Cloo gets written about is mentioning its last-place standing and that it merely exists. It should stay as-is. Nate • (chatter) 01:44, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose It is significant enough to merit a separate article and the merged page would be too cluttered. Marquis de Faux (talk) 03:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeJust about every other tv network has an article, no matter how small their operation, even if they lasted only a few years. Examples include such failures as SportsChannel Los Angeles and Wedding Central.--Rusf10 (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OpposeThey are two separate entities. Google owns many companies and it wouldn't make sense to combine all into one entry. I think if there are two separate entities they don´t belong on the same entry. calfaro (talk) 05:48, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Source Quality[edit]

Many citations in this article are entirely irrelevant and/or are external services cited together to create incidental connections. I am removing several per WP:V and adding a cite check but wanted to open discussion and list the removals.

https://ny.curbed.com/maps/10-buildings-possibly-endangered-by-a-midtown-east-rezoning, https://www.manta.com/c/mtmcrx9/newsmax-inc, and https://nypost.com/2011/12/03/sl-greens-block-party-deal/ are referenced for the location of their studio. None of these pages gives information identifying that address with their studio, rather, that is where their corporation is registered plus some context about the address.
https://www.multichannel.com/news/newsmax-grabs-fox-distribution-executive is the sole reference for the organization's "conservative lean" and associations with other high-profile, controversial news sources. Multichannel is an industry publication and appears to be reputable but this article itself gives far too little information to clarify the politics of the organizations mentioned in the article introduction. Additionally, multichannel has run numerous similar articles suggesting that they are attempting to keyword for Newsmax and promote the profile of the channel rather than provide unbiased information.
The website of the station's owner is relied upon throughout the article, a valid primary source, but the positive, promotional tone of the source has been transferred to the article's content, with the taglines of the station repeated throughout the body text.
No citations are provided for the personalities list. Not sure if this is required.

Further discussion welcome, this article appears to have many subtle issues spanning WP:NPOV, citation guidelines, and information selection and I didn't want to pepper it with templates. /[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/[/ (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Justinwzig1, for listing the issues, which I will take up with the authority behind the article and attempt to get them resolved. Please "pepper" me with any issues about point of view, citation guidelines, and information selection. I'm willing to learn. After declaring my CoI weeks ago, I listed many suggested changes (additions and deletions) on my talk page (anarchristian) under Newsmax TV. If you have an idea about who might evaluate/implement those suggested changes, please let me know or tell me who I might reach out to. Thanks again.Anarchristian (talk) 23:13, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relevant source[edit]

This coverage is strong and Slate is considered Generally Reliable at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/newsmax-greg-kelly-fox-news-trump.html

Hope this helps... IHateAccounts (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Newsmax TV for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Newsmax TV is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newsmax TV until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. IHateAccounts (talk) 16:24, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

? You mean because there is already an article called “Newsmax” Anston06 (talk) 07:48, 27 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merge and Redirect to Newsmax[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Issue was mooted with AfD keep result for this article, but below account kept persistently pushing until they were blocked for socking in late January 2021 and left someone else to close it. Nate • (chatter) 03:19, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See: Talk:Newsmax#Proposed_merge_(Newsmax_TV_content_to_Newsmax) IHateAccounts (talk) 18:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Description of Newsmax TV as "far-right"[edit]

I added the far-right descriptor to the lede with the relevant citations. Should it also be added to Newsmax, or should it only be for this article? Isi96 (talk) 01:11, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This shouldn't be added anywhere. The citations supporting this are all left-wing competitors (Mother Jones, New Republic, Huffington Post). These are not mainstream sources. The single NPR story is ambiguous.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:16, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No it should not be added. It directly contradicts other sources which document it as well within the mainstream of the Republican Party, and has prominent mainstream Republican figures running the company since the beginning. All the issues with the election conspiracy stuff is already documented, and does not make it necessarily ideologically far-right or any different from something like Fox News. The conservative label is uncontroversial and covers the full range. Marquis de Faux (talk) 17:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 21 July 2021[edit]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

63.76.253.162 (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some nuts publishing false news here. This station never promotes false conspiracies and voter fraud IS factually proven. Why the big bias ?

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Commentator[edit]

Rob Finnerty is very rude, will not allow guests to answer questions or make any comments without interrupting them. He tries to overpower guests and co-hosts with his knowledge or Lack Of. I think he just wants to hear himself talk! He should be Replaced! 209.196.65.75 (talk) 14:01, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]