Talk:Zero Hedge/Archive 1

Archive 1

Predictions

It is worth nothing that the website predict the collapse of the financial system. EVERY WEEK. From 2009.

Redundant Citation

At the time of writing, citations 5 and 7 both reference the article by Alloway & Kawa, the first from Bloomberg Markets, the second through the Sydney Morning Herald (not mentioned in the citation). Since both authors work directly for Bloomberg, it seems like the Sydney Morning Herald is the copycat (probably syndicated), and will therefore be the one that I remove.DrMichaelWright (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of removal

I have removed the template myself because your user page indicates you're not always around and you said to do it myself anyway. My preference would be for you to do it, but under the circumstances, I've gone ahead. Also, just for the record, my question "do you understand" was not meant as "are you stupid". I'm quite capable of writing that if that's what I mean. Marrante (talk) 05:41, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

I have given my previously posted reply above a new header for the convenience of those who want to cut to the chase. The rest of this post adds some pertinent information.

Although you said this article reads "like an ad" (and later admitted not reading it before tagging the article), a lede is, in fact, supposed to summarize the article, or as you wrote, "tell the whole story". Its purpose is to pique the reader's interest. Ad copy is not a summary, it's writing that tries to sell you something, which is why the important part of an ad is called the "call to action" or "the hook". Wikipedia also uses the word "hook" in this way, most notably on T:TDYK, where they draw the interest of the reader using a maximum of 200 characters. This does not make the DYK section of the main page an advertisement, though its purpose is to increase readership for new articles. Zero Hedge was never "written like advertising copy" and the template should never have been left there. Marrante (talk) 06:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Advertisement template discussion

Hi, I added the template. I got quickly thereafter an inquiry that I'll paste here with a response. Please add more opinions! --Sigmundur (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you understand the significance of what Zero Hedge is and has done? I have only had this "advertising" complaint about one other article I've worked on (also not one I started), one that originally came from a promotional brochure. That article was very difficult to write because there was little about it that didn't come from a source intimately connected with the subject and I completely re-wrote the entire article. With this article, I expanded it and added citations, but it was also difficult because of the choice of the contributors to remain anonymous. Nonetheless, it has a huge reputation in the financial community and is a very important website, well deserving of a Wikipedia page. I'm a good writer and I am careful about how I write here. I'd like to know just what you object to in the article. Thanks. Marrante (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sure. As you mentioned, the page "originally came from a promotional brochure". Even if you "re-wrote the entire article", it's still written in a form of a short story rather than encyclopedia article. I'm not disputing its "huge reputation in the financial community" or that it's "a very important website"; that's how I happened upon it, I was sort of interested.

But the thing is, I never read the article, because it is... well, a corporate story. A promotional brochure. Completely off the top of my head, Zero Punctuation provides an example of how you should (please!) try to re-arrange the article. I could do it for you, of course, but since you seem to take the page rather personally ("do you understand the significance of..." as in "are you stupid?" or "I'm a huge fan and your gut feeling is wrong"). So a couple of things that Zero Punctuation writers have got right:

• short opening. Please don't tell the whole story in the first paragraph. That makes it sound like a f** vision statement or a sales pitch.
• name the sections after, you know, topic and not an era in the glorious history of Zero Hedge or a suggestive title (like in a novel). My suggestion (really just quick idea, not maybe the best):
  • Blog profile
  • Writers' background
  • Revealing Goldman Sachs' flash trading (or similar that makes it apparent right off the bat what the section is about)
  • (more interesting details)
  • See also
  • References
• Get to the gist: what it is, why it's special right now. Save the important events as final sections after the introduction. I want short summary at first, or I get tired and stop reading. I want VERY basic information (like Zero Punctuation#Format) next, otherwise I again feel like you're just trying to make me read stuff I don't want to read (yet?). You know, like an ad.

The article has good and interesting information, it's just hard to pick out of there without reading the whole thing, which is not what I necessarily want to do. I should be able to find the relevant basic stuff by just briefly eyeing at the article, that's the point of all this "encyclopedic" stuff.

Gaah, I probably should've just fixed it instead of ranting here (: but I'll let you do it, you probably know and care more about the Zero Hedge anyway. I'm fine if you just remove the ad template yourself, just wanted to point out this I guess... --Sigmundur (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but your first statement is based on a wrong understanding of what I wrote. The promotional brochure was about the other article, not Zero Hedge. None of the material on Zero Hedge came from a promotional brochure. I only mentioned the other article because it was the only other time an article of mine was tagged with "advertising copy" and there, it made sense to me because of the difficulties. It was impossible to tweak the article and was necessary to completely re-write it. With Zero Hedge, that was not the case. I tweaked some passages, expanded a lot and cited everything I could. For the most part, I only write what I can cite, the main exception being when I translate articles and when I pick them up, if there is material that looks legit, I leave it until I'm convinced it needs to be removed. There's not much use replying to your comment, since it's based on a misunderstanding of where the article came from. Please remove the template yourself. Marrante (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

Quick rebut anyway. The headers are written the way they are because to me, these are the salient points. The reason the blog is different and so effective is that it's written by people who really know what they're talking about – industry insiders. How many business analysts have an actual clue? And more critical to the economic health of the US and other countries, how many business journalists have a clue? Zero Hedge is cutting edge. It doesn't try to write to the layperson, it writes for peers, so if the average person just starts reading, he will likely come away scratching his head, like I did. The one thing that was clear to me from the outset, however, was that they did know what they were saying and it wasn't just the usual drivel. "Growing influence" was the salient point, not the GS story. The GS flash trading story was big, huge in fact, but was just one story. With the U.S. and world economies in shambles, a website like ZH is critical and its "growing influence" is what will make mainstream journalists pick up stories from ZH and maybe stop wasting everyone's time writing gossip and police blotter reports. They don't change the number of jobs being created or the amount of taxpayer money being funneled to Wall St. Look at the important work Matt Taibbi's done. If I understand him correctly, his education started with ZH. Marrante (talk) 22:31, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

I did read the thing after I wrote that piece of text, actually. And my points are still valid: it's not written in concise and encyclopedic way, and people will not enjoy reading it. Its content may be neat but it needs to be re-organized. None of my points had anything to do with if "business journalists have a clue" or how "mainstream journalists pick up stories from ZH". I'm arguing about the form, not the content. And the form still makes me feel "ad". --Sigmundur (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

but, you know, whatever. Maybe one day someone more diligent than me happens to read it and cleans it up. Not my fight. --Sigmundur (talk) 13:56, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that you read the article later, but you tagged it first. Isn't that the cart before the horse? This article generally gets 100-150 hits a day. I started working on it about a month ago and I believe I improved the article. It was created on August 23, 2009 and first cleared 1000 hits per month in March 2010; the next month, 2000; the next month, 3000. You're the first to make this complaint, so it looks like you're in the minority on this. Marrante (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Bias?

If the founder (or at least major contributor) was banned from the industry for fraud, wouldn't that give him an incentive to attack the industry? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Financestudent (talk • contribs) 18:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It's well known that fraud convictions are used to punish those who do not play by the rules. Clearly this is the case as no one of any significance has been even charged with fraud despite the extraordinary events of the past two years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.239.64.82 (talk) 02:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

^ I hope that's sarcasm, didn't bring my tinfoil hat

...or sign your post, or read much. Or can you name anyone on Wall Street who has been convicted of fraud other than Bernie Madoff? Marrante (talk) 07:03, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

The logic of your defense of the purported founder is faulty. To claim that fraud convictions are used to "punish those who do not play by the rules" is just another way of saying they are committing fraud but pissing somebody off. It does not mean they are innocent. The fact that no big players have been convicted is irrelevant.

JPM Buy Silver

Zero Hedge didn't have anything to do with this. There are some user comments, which may or may not have led to someone coming up with the idea, but there's no concrete evidence for that either. If anything, this can go on either of their wiki's. If there were sections on the Zero Hedge Wiki for every idea a user expressed in the comments section, Zero Hedge's wiki would be unmanageable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1A28:1101:109:1337:0:0:274 (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Silence over Reinhart/Rogoff 2010 paper that failed replication

Political motives for censoring big economic news dealt a deadly blow to austerity economics. Most of the site believes in austerity economics. Face the reality Reinhart/Rogoff austerity got taken down by a simple Excel spreadsheet. --JLAmidei (talk) 02:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there anything to actually add to the page based on that? Or are you just ranting? TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 03:39, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

-- that assertion is wrong, and ZH did have some articles discussing the error. Also note that there is a difference between "austerity" as used by Keynesians and Austrians. Spending has continued to increase in all the countries in which Keynesians are whining about "austerity". It is also the case that cuts have been to social welfare programs rather than to other items like military spending.

The idea that the excel error repudiated calls for debt reduction is so ignorant as to be absurd. Krugman seized on it, and ZH addressed that. The truth is that 'austerity' in the sense of reductions in deficit spending have only been tried in a couple of places, like the Baltic countries - where after initial pain, their economies began expanding, which is what Austrian economists say would happen.

(Redacted) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.136.54.23 (talk) 22:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Basically, let's see some good sources and we could add them to the article. Otherwise let's not do ideological discussions. TheSoundAndTheFury (talk) 00:14, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Studies

http://www.peri.umass.edu/236/hash/31e2ff374b6377b2ddec04deaa6388b1/publication/566/
http://qz.com/88781/after-crunching-reinhart-and-rogoffs-data-weve-concluded-that-high-debt-does-not-cause-low-growth/?oref=dbamerica --JLAmidei (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

What is news? - Zero Hedge Tagline

CNN states that Zero Hedge, "a financial blog, offers deeply conspiratorial, anti-establishment and pessimistic view of the world." I am zooming into that statement because Zero Hedge is a financial blog that aggregates news and opinion from other sources. The CNN article goes on to say that sometimes Zero Hedge identifies financial issues before they become mainstream stories.

The tagline for Zero Hedge might need to be refined from the current entry;

--Zero Hedge is a news website, content aggregator, and collection of blogs by contributing editors. It reports on economics, Wall Street, and the financial sector and is credited with bringing the controversial practice of flash trading to public attention in 2009 via a series of posts alleging that Goldman Sachs' access to flash order information allowed the firm to gain unfair profits. The news portion of the site is written by a group of editors who collectively write under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden", a character from the novel and film Fight Club.

Some suggested elements;

-financial blog

-aggregation of editorial opinions and news

-credited with identifying issues of importance in advance of mainstream financial news

Any Ideas?

Lfrankbalm (talk)lfrankbalmLfrankbalm (talk) 17:54, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

References

See also (very weak section)

See also is very weak. Time has a list to check out

Business Insider Grasping Reality with a Sharp Beak Econbrowser Rortybomb Dealbreaker Paul Kedrosky The Wealth Report WalletPop Naked Capitalism Real Time Economics Megan McArdle DealBook Street Sweep Free Exchange Economix The Big Picture Zero Hedge Planet Money Ezra Klein The Consumerist Freakonomics Calculated Risk Marginal Revolution Felix Salmon The Conscience of a Liberal — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lfrankbalm (talk • contribs) 04:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

References

Article still needs a lot of work

The article still reads like an ad and it needs to be revised. It's obvious that some biased people are trying to paint zh as a legitimate website and are trying to delete anything critical of zh. However wikipedia is no place for advertising blogs. 88.214.162.38 (talk) 12:24, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I am returning the Matt Taibi quotation removed by an admittedly biased SPA. Please don't vandalize the Pedia. petrarchan47คุก 01:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

ties to ABC Media Ltd.

The article should point out the ties to "ABC Media Ltd." what company is this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.30.210.121 (talk) 19:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

ABC Media is apparently a Bulgarian property owned by Georgi Georgiev, a business partner of Daniel's father,Krassimir Ivandjiiski. gobonobo ^{+ c} 02:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Out of date? Now an (alt-right?) political blog?

Zerohedge no longer appears to be a financial blog, but now primarily a (largely right-wing) political blog, with (IMHO) much of the content 'alt-right' or verging on it. That it is now primarily a political blog with occasional finanically-related articles is self evident just by looking at the site (when, of course, it always used to be the converse: a financial blog with occasional political or current affairs articles).

But that's original research on my part, even if at least the swtich from financial to political blogging would be self evident to anyone who views the site. So we need sources to allow us to update to describe the current nature of this blog....

Roybadami (talk) 23:21, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Denied as founder

Ivandjiiski denies that he's the founder of zero hedge: http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2009/08/who-is-tyler-durden_21.html --66.108.79.139 (talk) 00:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what it says. Figureofnine (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

It does not matter who the founder is and whether he/she denies it or not. What matters is if it's the truth. Messengers are exchangeable. They can be shot, but if the message is the truth, tallying with known facts - it does not matter who says and the message deserves to be out there and survive. 58.174.193.15 (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, knowing the truth about the founders and current owners of Zerohedge would also be truth. The more informed we all are, the better. Not knowing the founders prevents us from knowing any possible bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.181.160.138 (talk) 18:42, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

repeating content in sections

almost every paragraph contained the biases of zerohedge, even the part about finances. i moved that into "stances". repeating makes the article look very biased against ZH. @Volunteer Marek: --Hepion (talk)

If the majority of sources discuss the views of a group, then the article is meant to as well. Stickee (talk) 11:26, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

the paragraph "finance" should not contain "views and stances" when there is sole paragraph called "views and stances" --Hepion (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

remove personal blog as source

i removed "streetwise" from the sources along with the citation, since its a personal blog. instead i put in the statement he gave to smh.com.au @Volunteer Marek: --Hepion (talk)

As of revision https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zero_Hedge&oldid=807435993 some quote by dr. pirrog is contained that i cant find on the cited website (smh), should it be removed? --Hepion (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Blogs are permitted when done by recognized experts in the relevent field (such as an economics Professor). From WP:BLOGS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Stickee (talk) 22:32, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

He is researcher on finances. how far that makes him able to give judgement about political questions? Can you list publications that support his experience in that topics aswell? When looking at his blog posts like 'Sorry To Hear About Your Junk, Vlad. That's Gotta Hurt' or 'Gazprom Struggles, And There Was Much Rejoicing', 'Hey, It's August: The Russian Economy Imitates The Kursk', 'Rosneft: Supermajor Wannabe' i doubt his views are anywhere UNBIASED when it gets to 'russia'. Hepion (talk) 12:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Here at Wikipedia we go by what reliable sources say, not what we think. In this case the SMH believes that he is reliable. Stickee (talk) 12:35, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Consider a restructure of this article

I know this website well and understand the issues WP faces with various editing factions. Much of the content in this article is valid and should be recorded - and protected - in a proper encyclopedic chronicle of ZH (although some of the wording is a bit too dismissive). I feel however that the article has gone too far in a given direction. In the financial world, ZH is a major blog/website. Walk into any trading floor on a volatile day and you will see many screens with ZH open - they are all aware of the Russian bias, tinfoil-hat conspiracies etc., but there is also financial analysis on ZH that is sometimes original and insightful, and appears days/weeks before more mainstream i-bank sources.

The section "Readership, views and stances" should be broken up into:

1. Readership - a dedicated section should tabulate the statistical rankings of ZH in Alexa (or other traffic screeners), so show the traffic of ZH, its trend (which I think is actually increasing), and ZH's ranking amongst U.S. finance sites, which I think is high? You get no impression of this aspect of ZH's popularity in this article?
2. Views - ZH did not become so popular based solely on conspiracy theories and Russian-bias (which it has lots of). It introduced a generation of investors/traders to Austrian economics and the credit cycle (rightly or wrongly!), and this should be recorded and chronicled in a standalone section.
3. Criticism - This is where most of the material in "Readership, views, and stances" should go; most of it is all valid, however, it is positioned as almost the only material of interest on ZH and thus leading to bias in the article. I also think that it is only the last few years that ZH has sadly become much more political/pro-Russia/alt-right etc.

ZH is a good and notable topic for WP but, in my experience, it is treasure buried in manure. For investors who can't tell the difference, bad outcomes happen. However, go into any English speaking trading room and ask for a show of hands of who has read ZH in the last 24-hours.Britishfinance (talk) 10:58, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

* Decided to make these changes myself.Britishfinance (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Krassimir Ivandjiiski, reputed father of Daniel Krassimirov Ivandjiiski

The only real ok quality reference to Krassimir being Daniel's father is the 27 September 2009 New York Magazine article, which given it was proved to be correct on Daniel, is worth citing (but linked as a statement by the New York Magazine). Would love to find a higher quality source but can't find anything.

Krassimir, who has his own Wiki article, appears to run a Bulgarian publication, called "Top Secret" that seeks to expose Bulgarian corruption. There seem to be lots of "junk" written about Krassimir on other Bulgarian-sourced sites calling him a Russian-plant, US-plant, and everything else. Obviously, given the pro-Russian stance of Zero Hedge, it is easy to start linking this into the ZH Wikipedia article, which we must not do. Using conspiracy sites to cite conspiracy sites is not good (I'm sure there is a WP acronym for it??). One could just as easily construct the theory that his father is a good guy whom corrupt state-back Bulgarian agencies are trying to bring down and discredit, as the theory that his father is a Soviet-agent working to undermine the Bulgarian state (and many versions in between). All I can say with any certainty is that he does run "Top Secret", and that "Top Secret's" aims are as per its website.Britishfinance (talk) 18:24, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Russian bias

I have read Zero Hedge for years, and particularly in the last few years, I can see a strong Russian-bias. However, my impressions aside, it is important that citeable facts here are appropriate. I have used the New Yorker May 5 2016 article and the Bloomberg 29 April 2016 article on this as they are the highest quality sources. I have also left in the Dr. Craig Pirrong assertions given that he is a proper Finance Professor. HOWEVER, I have also linked in the critical articles that ZH has written on Dr. Pirrong (Wall Street's Professor-for-hire), which gives some balance/counterpoint to Pirrong's claims (which are much much stronger than the New Yorker or Bloomberg). I was thinking of deleting Pirrong's assertions given this, however I think showing both sides is a better way to chronicle this unusual subject. Readers can see how a site like ZH, which makes some very aggressive attacks on people, can attract an equally stong backdraft. I also tempered the Paul Krugman critisms to show the same issue.Britishfinance (talk) 18:32, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

GEROVA Financial Group litigation

I added a section on Litigation. I notice criticism regarding ZH on various blogs etc. regarding the 2012 lawsuit regarding the GEROVA Financial Group. People seem to mistake this as an SEC investigation into ZH, and that the information cited in the complaint as being SEC sourced. There is an irony here, given what the SEC subsequently found in GEROVA. Anyway, let's just ensure that the facts of the case are properly chronicled and recorded. I can't see any other litigation on ZH, or Daniel, which I am sure is wrong given the nature of this site and its attacks on Wall St ? If there is anything else, please add to this section.Britishfinance (talk) 12:01, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Zerohedge account holders cannot delete their accounts.

Zerohedge account holders cannot delete their accounts, which likely renders any statistical info, regarding its participants, guess work. I know this for a fact and can verify it by virtue of being a blocked account holder. The reason I am blocked is because I put unusual pressure on them by, posting my request on every article they published until they responded to my desire to terminate my account. As you may know, or not know, they do not provide a contact email or phone #, leaving one to think outside of the box. Nevertheless, they did not delete my account. Rather, they blocked me. I believe they do this to appear as though they have more members than they actually do, thus they are able to generate more ad revenue.

Now I don't know if this info is useful for this article, but it is all true, and if someone wishes to incorporate it into the article here, then please do so. My attempt was rejected and I was directed to this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FreeEarCandy (talk • contribs) 07:41, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Neither does Wikipedia allow users to delete their accounts. The article does not use account data, it uses traffic data as collated by independent third parties (not Zero Hedge). Traffic data is also not perfect, however, it is acceptable as a proxy statistic for popularity.Britishfinance (talk) 09:13, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Site Traffic section

I have restored this to the article. WP does allow site traffic information to be inserted into articles from the traffic-sites (there are thousands of infoboxes with Alexa traffic statistics). The data is presented as listed and is not designed to mislead/present the facts in a different way. Per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, the data is from an industry utility and is easily checked and confirmed (why I did not use Alexa as there is a bigger paywall). It is information that a reader on the site would find helpful and interesting. In addition, the Twitter information is also secondary sourced and not WP:OR. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Redundancies

The information under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge#Twitter_account is duplicated partially or whole in the section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_Hedge#2014_to_2018, and maybe elsewhere. --62.224.54.75 (talk) 16:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Extension of protection

The semi-protection on this article runs out on 19 January 2019. Given the consistent level of unhelpful IP edits on this article, should we not extend it for another year? Ultimately, ZH is a controversial website and its ongoing popularity means that this remains a problem. Britishfinance (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

We should all live in echo chambers then and learn to not seek alternative facts or viewpoints? Having been a journalist myself I know how binning something makes it go away in the eyes of the reader - but of course the topic will simmer under the surface until it bubbles up with a bang. Here in Australia Zerohedge was banned completely yesterday - today I caught one article through detours but the commenting does not exist - and I do not like it. You cannot even debunk when they write BS = "The fact remains that 90% of tech innovations come from the Military". Everything that comes from the Military is government funded so it's government business activity.

PS: What would have happened if comments had existed in 1939? Would someone have warned us about Hitler's false flag in Gleiwitz that started WWII? Ally Hauptmann-Gurski 2001:8003:AC60:1400:45ED:6812:4AA6:2CCF (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, but it is not clear what point you are making? Britishfinance (talk) 10:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I can see I came along after the protection was lifted. The intro reads like a PR puff piece. Disinformation reigns supreme in 2020. Rousse (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Elon Musk, climate change

Just thought I'd make a note about two topics that the blog's writers make posts about regularly, sometimes daily. And these are not re-posts of things other authors have written, these are editorials authored by the site's staff.

1. Elon Musk/Tesla has become an obsession, with every article denigrating Musk and pouring scorning on Tesla and its finances. Shorting is subtly encouraged (many of whom must have lost their shirts by following the implied advice).
2. The site also publishes a constant flow of antiscience climate change denial articles, replete with pseudoscience and just outright lies.

Neither of these elements are mentioned in our article, and despite looking for sources to back up what is plainly visible there on a daily basis, I have yet to find any. I'd like to see these elements mentioned in our article, but until someone can find a RS discussing it, I don't see how it can be worked in. Any ideas? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 00:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Alt-right?

In this piece [1] for the New Yorker, is Benjamin Wallace-Wells actually arguing that Zero Hedge is associated with or has views similar to the alt right? What Wallace-Wells writes is,

...The wink between Trump and his supporters has been so sustained that it’s hard to tell which parts of his populism each side understands as theatre, and which parts are for real. You could ask some of the same questions about the alt-right, the loosely assembled far-right movement that exists largely online, and that overlaps with both the Trump campaign and with the politics of Zero Hedge. Richard Spencer, the white nationalist who came up with the term “alt-right,” described the movement in December as “an ideology around identity, European identity...”

In other words, there is overlap between alt-right and Zero worldviews. I'll check to make sure we're reflecting this accurately. -Darouet (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

The piece goes into some detail on this - David Gerard (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, Media Matters and Foreign Policy. There's not really call to phrase it so as to make it look like one individual at the New Yorker. I've phrased it "has been associated with" and added the extra two cites - David Gerard (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you David Gerard: those additional links are quite helpful, and in this context, the text as you've edited it appears accurate. Best, -Darouet (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

cheers :-) the FP cite is imperfect (the site's not Bulgarian), but it shows that reputable sources associate ZH with the alt-right. (Though I'd call it "of common interests" at best, and not "alt-right" as such.) - David Gerard (talk) 13:15, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I did see the note that it was "Bulgarian," tending to reduce the credibility of the piece at least so far as ZH is concerned — but the other two sources appear sufficient at least for the text you've written. Let's look to see if we can find more reliable commentary on this particular issue — if not, it might be worthwhile to drop that particular description down to the article body. Or what do you think? I also think the text can be shortened to "alt right and pro-Russian views," or some variant that indicates support for Russian over American foreign policy on a geopolitical level. -Darouet (talk) 15:33, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised that got into FP actually, I've written for FP and their fact-checkers are thorough - David Gerard (talk) 08:09, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The NYT article seems to be behind a paywall. Is this true for anyone else? Additionally, mediamatters is hardly a reliable, non-political source in and of itself. I am suspect of these two sources as mentioned, and I now cannot verify the NYT piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdabs (talk • contribs) 20:49, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Paywalled sources are fine (and the NYT paywall is porous). A quick check of WP:RSN shows a general acceptance of Mediamatters, despite substanceless attempts to impeach it - if you think you have substantive and convincing reasons to impeach these two sources, you need to present them fully - David Gerard (talk) 09:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

+1 Agree with David Gerard. Britishfinance (talk) 09:51, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I can agree that the Macron piece on Zerohedge looks false. I take issue with the leap to label such as "alt-right," in addition to false information. Other media was expounding these documents at the time as well. So the only claims to "alt-right"-ish is from the original source of mediamatters itself, where it tries to associate the site with other confirmed alt-right venues. Association in a serial list does not hold as solid confirmation for the label and also borders on original research/opinion by the MM author (unless I am missing other sources). As to FP, the piece that it calls into question clearly states the source of the picture (a non-profit American think tank had discovered it on the Telegram app) and also that the picture has not been independently verified in the opening paragraph. An average reader has the ability, with these statements, to know that the picture itself has less than concrete origins, but that the origin is from a think tank rather than a forum or shady government. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdabs (talk • contribs) 18:24, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

And yet, the RSes - David Gerard (talk) 12:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Zero Hedge is not part of any alt-right conspiracy and is not pro-Russian. In fact, Zero Hedge allows anyone to contribute to the site with any worldview. There are plenty of leftist contributors on Zero Hedge. The site is very fact based, with articles heavily referenced. If you read an article you will find many links to sources. There isn't alot of Fake News as the managers of the site will not display crap articles, however, anyone can contribute an article. How to reference this? I don't know. But using CNN and other leftist sites which don't like the idea of free journalism, will obviously make statements to suppress freedom of the press. The critiques posed on Wikipedia are biased and unfounded. Wikireadia2020 (talk) 19:36, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

We only go by what WP:RS say about Zero Hedge; my, or your views, are not used on WP. If you believe these are not RS, go to WP:RS/P to appeal/discuss with the community. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

No, ZeroHedge is not pro-Russian at all. It's just purely by accident their headlines are 100% verbatim copy of all bizarre fakes distributed in Russian media: MH17 Turnabout: Ukraine's Guilt Now Proven | Zero Hedge, The Evidence In The MH17 Case Doesn't Point To Russia, Ukranian Whistleblower Reveals MH-17 Tragedy Was Orchestrated By Poroshenko And British Secret Service, The West's Moral Bankruptcy Exposed | Zero Hedge etc. Cloud200 (talk) 14:55, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is "alt-right" in the lead? It seems to get only limited mention in the body of the article. I've read a number of Zero Hedge articles and they always strike me as a more conspiratorial than anything. I can only give so much credit to a source that allows someone to publish under the name Tyler Durden. However, I'm linked to the articles via a financially focused twitter feed so I may not be seeing the full picture. Regardless, given how little of the body (and sources) focus on the "alt-right" claim, why put it in the lead? Springee (talk) 03:42, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The atl-right label has no dictionary definition and editors seem to give it broad meaning. I will change my mind when it is in American heritage or Webster's, but at the moment the label is subjective Jdabs (talk) 02:04, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

"And yet, the RSes" Please speak in full to new editors. The meaning is not clear to me Jdabs (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The argument is not RS but that there's original research to make a leap to the alt right label. Not sure what the confusion is here Jdabs (talk) 02:39, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

The updates since December have been amazing. Thank you for the edits that show a bit more gray in labeling, but still point out the site's extremes, esp. as it relates to news outside of Finance. That development clearly needed to be pointed out because the site has definitely changed its content since 2009, which this article is good at pointing out (with RS) as on the more right-leaning than what the site was originally founded on. The most contentious articles on wikipedia are some of the most fascinating to be a part of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdabs (talk • contribs) 22:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

It's all about Trump on CNN too

The articles on Zerohedge are coverage of current events. This is similar to most news and social media entities. A common divergence between outlets is whether they appear to be supportive or opposed to a prominent figure and this distinction must be simple and easy to understand for consumers of each website. Readers will typically have a preference based on this coverage. Note that both media outlets do the same thing, focus on the President and control public opinion about the President. Moreover most media outlets in the United States are State affiliated and variously encourage the public to think about the President. This is much more important than the trivial criticism or acclaim of the symbol of authority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.247.65 (talk) 12:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Elon Musk, climate change, missing the point

Tabloid media is sensationalist media. It is important to understand there is only pretense here to meet the public's intellectual needs. What should be mentioned in this article is the media's regular use of propaganda to persuade attitudes beliefs and behaviors, even though its users are consciously aware of falsehoods and absurdities and aren't inclined to believe most of them. This is far more subtle or insidious. Consider that most coverage of a celebrity - Elon Musk in this case - only increases their popularity whether this coverage is positive or negative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.153.247.65 (talk) 12:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Manifesto and views / Financial views / Conspiracies

The text states: "Zero Hedge maintains a number of financial views/theories which are considered conspiratorial, and/or hard-to-prove or unprovable" [...] "iv. Chinese fraud. The belief that Chinese economic data is made-up, and that many Chinese companies are fraudulent (called "fraudcaps" by the site)"

How is this a conspiracy theory? Even Wikipedia articles document the many frauds. Recently - Luckin Coffee.

The fraud is well docutmented- Case study on accounting fraud of U.S.-listed Chinese companies https://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/90232 U.S. Moves to Audit Chinese Firms. Market Frets Over What Comes Next. https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-moves-to-audit-chinese-firms-market-frets-over-what-comes-next-11590485401. Chinese Growth Becomes a Tougher Sell on Wall Street. https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinese-growth-becomes-a-tougher-sell-on-wall-street-11586426382. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colonycat (talk • contribs) 04:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Demonitazation

Would it be okay to use the RS CNBC's original research if it was used to demonitize Zerohedge? I want to expand on the "controversy" section. But the RS is the controversy? Jdabs (talk) 23:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

What? For a reliable source to be controversy, there would have to be another reliable source "controverting" it. Please read WP:RS and WP:OR. Get specific with proposed changes and link to reliable sources, also. Grayfell (talk) 00:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Reversion of first sentence edit by Ratel

I have reverted an edit by Ratel that removed the existing consensus first sentence describing the site as a markets-focused blog (per Bloomberg, Washington Post, and Reuters), in favour of calling it a right-wing blog (from a Forbes reference). While the article (and lede) does make reference to the right-wing elements of the site's non-financial content (a distinctive aspect), the references do not label the site as exclusively right-wing in terms of its principal characteristic, which is financial. It is important with this "controversial" site that we keep to the best quality RS and to NPOV. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 08:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I've been reading the site for several years, and the articles range from right wing to rabidly right wing. Nothing, ever, is published there from the left side. In fact the site is rated as "extreme right wing" by Media Bias/Fact Check [2]. We should call a spade a spade here, not try to obfuscate reality. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I have also read this site for years, and agree with the best quality references on it - it is a mainly financial site (and has views all across the spectrum, some brilliant, some (deliberately - although I don’t have a ref to prove this) misleading, and some just bizarre), and its non-financial content does lean to alt right (per lede): and pro Russian (per lede), however, it is not principally a right wing site. We must go with the highest quality references. Britishfinance (talk) 12:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your "all across the spectrum" comment, can you provide any examples of left wing articles? I've plowed through all the pro-Trump, climate denying, anti-renewable energy, anti-Musk, conspiratorial stuff, and I can't find any. And if there aren't any, then site is first and foremost an ideologically-driven site, not primarily a financial site. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 21:44, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

In WP terms, the site is what the highest quality references says it is. That is all we can follow. They do not label it a principally right-wing site, but a financial markets site (with content that leans to alt-right and pro-Russian). That is what the consensus version of the lede supports. Your - or mine - or personal views/investigations do not feature. Britishfinance (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

But turning to your RSes, we see that Bloomberg calls it "libertarian financial website Zero Hedge".[3] Notice that Forbes and Bloomberg both preface the "financial" part with the right-wing/libertarian qualifier. Why don't we? Do you want me to find more examples? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 23:09, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

• Another reference by Bloomberg to Zero Hedge being a "libertarian financial" site [4]
• "Far-right financial website" from NYT [5]
• "A right-wing blog called Zero Hedge" from Washington Post [6]
• "A right-leaning finance blog called Zero Hedge" Washington Post [7]

More where that came from. I don't see a RS problem with my edit at all. Unless you have a more cogent argument, will revert. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

In terms of your RS above:

• Bloomberg are not calling it "right-wing"? The existing ref, and your ref, both call it "libertarian financial website", which is different from a "right-wing website".[8] [9]
• The NYT reference is not a NYT article but a link to a BuzzFeed article, who is not an unbiased source on the site (per the Twitter affair).
• The Washington Post article is not a WPO staff writer but an opinion piece by another biased source being Jared Holt from "Right Wing Watch". The WPO staff writers view on the site are in the current reference [10], and say "Zero Hedge launched in 2009, mostly featuring news and commentary about financial markets from a libertarian perspective. In recent years, the blog has amplified right-wing conspiracy theories on a range of topics".
• Your last WPO ref is the staff writers one just above, which also do call it "right-leaning", and is thus repeated in the second sentance regarding its non-financial commentary having "alt-right" views.

From the above, you can see that the highest-grade staff-written RS are careful about the labeling of the site as "right-wing" (and never as its principal attribute (unlike other sites), which is as a financial markets website). Other high-quality refs like Reuters [11], follow this approach, calling it a "financial market website".

This article used to be a mess of POV (and was locked for a period). It was worthless, and any reader even glancing it would move on as it was so obviously biased. I am trying to get it back from that, and have even had CBS News in February 2020 quote the article as a source (per the article Talk page tag), which is what we want.

I have thought about using the term "libertian financial markets website", per Bloomberg, however, I think the lede structure of two paragraphs - one on its financial markets aspect (its most dominant part), and a second on its non-financial content (where the alt-right, pro-Russian parts are discussed), is the best way. Britishfinance (talk) 10:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Quite a lot of hair splitting going on there — I have yet to see an RS redefined as referring to "staff writers" only, so that's news to me — all of which seems to be seeking to avoid calling a spade a spade. Predictably, you have not been able to answer my challenge to show where any left-leaning content occurs ... despite the dubious claim of "all across the spectrum". So the site is indisputably right-leaning, right-wing, libertarian, alt-right, call it what you will. That's common knowledge, not WP:OR. I strongly feel that the initial sentence should state that. Let's look for a compromise word. Will "conservative" do? 🙂 Ratel 🌼 (talk) 10:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

• Just FYI:

1. "of the right-wing news blog Zero Hedge" South China Morning Post [12]
2. "English-speaking alt-right media, such as The Daily Caller and Zero Hedge" Columbia Journalism Review [13]
3. "Zero Hedge, a right-wing blog known for making outlandish claims" San Diego Union Tribune [14]
4. "Zero Hedge, a popular economics- and finance-focused conservative blog" New York Magazine [15]
5. "Zero Hedge has a right-leaning, anti-establishment bent" Marketwatch [16]
6. "two conservative sites were also on the list, PJ Media and Zero Hedge" National Catholic Register [17]
7. "the conservative blog Zero Hedge" Vox [18]
8. "... right-leaning or libertarian sites such as ... Zero Hedge" Media Post [19]
9. "...right-leaning outlets. Breitbart, InfoWars, The Gateway Pundit, Conservative Treehouse, The Drudge Report, and Zero Hedge are prime examples." USA Herald [20]

Lots more where that came from, hopefully not required. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 11:16, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

I hear you. Let me come back to you tomorrow on this as am busy in RL. Some of these refs are also not appropriate, but others might work. Want to make sure that any change is stable (given the bad history on this article). Also pinging David Gerard who also patrols this article. Thanks for your patience. Britishfinance (talk) 12:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

yeah, it's nonsensical to claim Zero Hedge isn't right to far-right - David Gerard (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

sorry I hit rollback there, I meant to do an ordinary revert with edit comment "clearly, per talk" - David Gerard (talk) 12:51, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Redux

David Gerard, I agree with Smyth that we did not get to far-right (I think an IP put in this in), and that is not what the best quality sources above call it (at best, it is right-wing or right-leaning). Also, the Forbes ref is a contributor (e.g. no oversight), so have taken out (we have lots of high-quality refs from Reuters, Bloomberg and WPO anyway). I can live with putting right-leaning in the first sentence (my preference was to deal with this in the second sentence, however, am happy to be influenced by yourself and the others on this), but not far-right. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

That seems to be you personally not liking "far-right" there, but you can see above the extensive list of top-tier sources (e.g. NYT) saying literally those words - David Gerard (talk) 08:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

This article used to be junk as it was full of extreme labels in both directions. I think it is in much better shape now. Every criticism and issue regarding the site that has been chronicled in proper WP:RS is in this article, and it is even getting quoted by CBS as a reference. There is a case for calling it right-wing per above, however, there are very few good RS that use the term far-right, and a lot of very good RS that don't even use the term at all. Zero Hedge is not Proud Boys (which is unambiguously far-right). Zero Hedge is covered by some of the highest grade RS in finance, and they are very careful about how the label it. And so should we, otherwise, nobody will read it, and it will just revert back to being junk. Britishfinance (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

That's precisely not addressing what is being discussed and extensively documented in this section. There's plenty of cites to it being "far right", your personal feelings about the site aside - David Gerard (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There is an extensive discussion of the RS above, and particularly the best grade RS. It has nothing to do with my "personal feelings". Your own contribution was to state that is was "nonsensical" (without any consideration of the main RS on this topic), which could also be interpreted as a personal view? I personally don't feel that the "right-wing" term should be in the first sentence (per my discussion above), however, I have been persuaded from the above to concede. I think you are being harsh on me? Britishfinance (talk) 09:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

The best way to resolve this, apart from competing RSes, is to look at what would be the most accurate term. Take a look at far-right politics, one of our better articles. In it, we see that "alt-right" and "reactionary" views are hallmarks of the far-right. ZH definitely has reactionary editorial views (do I need to expand on this, given the data already in our article?). But there are some features of the far right that are missing (homophobia, racism [arguable] inter alia). Looking at the article centre-right politics, we can see that ZH is clearly more right than what's described there. So NOT centre-right. Now ZH is a virulent supporter of Trump, a right-wing populist, and I find the article right-wing populism perhaps the closest match to the site's zeitgeist. Echoing Trump ("beautiful, clean coal"), many of the articles are anti-Musk, anti-renewable energy and pro-fossil fuels. This reminds us that the Koch brothers, founders of the Tea Party Movement (mentioned in the far-right politics article), are also ardently anti-renewables because of their extensive fossil fuel interests. So ZH is allied to the Tea Party Movement, which is far-right by WPs' own definition.

So personally I am happy with any of these descriptors in the first sentence: far-right, alt-right, right-wing, right-leaning, right-wing populist, conservative. Far-right would not be incorrect, and we have the RS if we decide that's the most accurate. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 23:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

I would like to argue that you are all being blinded by your own collective bias... but in this echo chamber a leftist bias is easily mistaken for consensus.. perhaps you could consult a third party who isn't rabidly anti-right about whether your clearly subjective description (which you are biased sources as citation for) is accurate or not. I say it should be reverted to what had been there for weeks previous to the change. this coming from me, somone who hates Trump (idiot/malevloent) but considers himself reasonably objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.210.215 (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Low content quality

So, the very first thing this article says about this site is "far-right" ("far-right financial blog" is an interesting concept -- are there any "far-right culinary blogs" yet?) The links indeed successfuly demonstate that such well-respectable, honourable, and no doubt impartial academic institutions as CNBC, BuzzFeed, Google Ads, NYT, etc, have actaully identified this site as "far-right" and conspiracy-theorist. OK, who am I to argue? However, both the links and the article itself fail to demonstate HOW EXACTLY this site is far-right. The article would benefit GREATLY if it mentioned what exactly this site systematically said was racist, ultra-nationalist, etc, and what kind of conspiracies it believes in. Any plans on adding that? BaruchVasserman (talk) 13:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

It's not up to us to "demonstrate" or prove anything. We reflect what reliable sources are saying, is all. And those sources say the site is far-right. Wikipedia is not a platform to argue for or against. Maybe you should try Reddit? Ratel 🌼 (talk) 21:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Did you read what I wrote? The only thing I'm willing to argue about here is the quality of this article, and I'm saying that it is could be grealy improved by explaining *how exactly* the thing is "far-right". Having read the article, I just wasn't able to understand what exactly it promotes related to "neo-fascism, neo-Nazism, Third Position, the alt-right, white nationalism, and other ideologies or organizations that feature aspects of ultranationalist, chauvinist, xenophobic, theocratic, racist, homophobic, anti-communist [sic], or reactionary views". Do the "reliable sources" actually bother to explain that, so that it can be summarized here, a bit more substantially than "conspiracy theories on a range of topics"? BaruchVasserman (talk) 23:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Any claims would need to be directly supported by sources, per the verifiability and the no original research. For example, if a reliable source states that Zero Hedge is far-right, and then later describes some of the material that Zero Hedge publishes, but does not explicitly label that material as far-right, we are generally unable to link that material with the far-right descriptor in this article. — Newslinger talk 11:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly the problem I'm talking about: although every statement in the article is, technically, well-sourced, the resulting article makes little sense, and is of low use for the reader in this respect. I'm wondering how that is possible. When a journalist mentions in passing that some site is far-right (far-left, centrist, liberal, conservative, etc) while talking about something else, can that be a reliable source for a strong statement in an encyclopedic article? While, the fact that some journalists find the site e.g. "far-right" is no doubt worth mentioning, I would think, it at least needs to be some analysis from a reliable source trying to make the point explicitly -- and, automatically, there would be no shortage of examples for the Wikipedia article in this case. To be fair, the links given can only back the statement that it is "considered far-right by some journalists" than acutally "far-right". BaruchVasserman (talk) 21:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Is ZH right or far right? The far right features are many. Just off the top off my head:

1. conspiracy theories Y (constant feature)
2. racism Y (just look at what they allow in the comments, as well as the many anti-BLM articles)
3. anti-communist / anti-socialist Y (many articles attack anything to do with "socialism")
4. neo-fascist Y (the heavily pro-Russian bias is supportive of Putin's fascist regime )

There's more but that's a start. Ratel 🌼 (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is exactly a Reddit-level conversation. You may want to start with modifying the Far-right article with your original definition. You may also want to add "far-right" to the articles about Russia Today and every other Russian news media, since they all are governemt controlled and therefore "pro-Russian", and to the article about Putin himself (good luck with that, srsly!). Let's see where that gets you and if you can make those statements with reliable sources. Then I think it will be a good time to expand this article with the points you've just mentioned.

But these points are still better than nothing for the article, yes (if you have good sources).BaruchVasserman (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

ZeroHedge is not "fake news", nor "far right", nor publishing "conspiracy theories". If you don't agree with this statement, Prove Me Wrong !

Is ridiculous to label ZeroHedge "far-right" and "fake news" and "conspiracy theories website" and there is no consensus among editors regarding keeping those labels. Even though a couple of editors might want to make us believe there is consensus, in reality there are more editors complaining about these labels, that those pearl-clutching over the removal of these labels. The.Barbaryan (talk) 20:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether we agree with it or not personally is not relevant, as Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state. If you disagree with how the sources describe this website, you will need to take that up with the sources. 331dot (talk) 12:14, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

What you call "independent reliable sources" are outlets that lost their relevance and credibility the moment they mentioned "Saddam's Weapons of Mass Destruction", "Clinton's 99% chance to win 2016 elections" or even these days, desperately scrambling to convince the public that the fainting nurse Tiffany Pontes Dover ("death record". {{cite web}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)CS1 maint: url-status (link) 2nd "r" in searchquarry replaced with * due to wikipedia filter) is still alive after collapsing during live covid-19 vaccination and subsequently disappearing completely. But what to expect from this joke of a blog, called wikipedia?

Collapsed under Talk Page Guidelines. (see WP:NPA)

It's just the playground of frustrated, socially awkward soy bois.

The.Barbaryan (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is up to you to prove the claims you drop here. And personal attacks are not helpful. The Banner talk 19:49, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Fortunately, I did, but some here can't let go their bias. And that's what makes Wikipedia more irrelevant with every passing day. The.Barbaryan (talk) 16:25, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Maybe you should check your own bias! The Banner talk 16:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@The.Barbaryan: You seem to enjoy trying to browbeat people into submission. Are you having much luck with that? Actually, I don't see indications your assertions represent anything more than one small opinion in a global cacophony of voices. I hate to sound sophomoric, but you know what they say about opinions... Sheesh. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 21:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@UncleBubba: Nice to see you agree wikipedia is just an opinion blog. The.Barbaryan (talk) 00:15, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

In your opinion. "Never wrestle with a pig. You both get all dirty, and the pig likes it." Sorry, everyone, for feeding the troll. I should've followed the advice in WP:DONTFEED and just STFU. :-\ — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 15:45, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

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)

Some users here, like User:Politanvm and 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.Barbaryan (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC (UTC)

Consensus is a policy that all Wikipedia editors are expected to respect. The verifiability policy and reliable sources guideline, which support the use of the reliable sources cited in this article, are both backed by the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Your "gas-light" accusation is an aspersion, which is considered a personal attack; personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 01:01, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Fair right?

Okay, now put MSNBC as far left 45.17.195.157 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC) "Fair right" is a ridiculous charge anyway, and you know it 45.17.195.157 (talk) 20:48, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

That argument is a false dilemma and it's also irrelevant to this article. — Newslinger talk 20:58, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

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. [21], [22], 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" [23], the next one I opened stated that concepts like "privilege" and "systemic racism" are "dubious" (a typical far right position) [24], 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The.Barbaryan (talk • contribs) 07:16, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

See Special:Diff/998784052. Personal attacks are prohibited on Wikipedia. — Newslinger talk 01:05, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

As Libertarian as Goose-Stepping

I take more offence at it being labeled "libertarian." Libertarianism is the contemporary incantation of classical liberalism, which is absolutely anti-fascist, anti-violence, and pro-free market. I take "far-right" to either mean fascist (as Twitter and Google decided when banning ZH for racism and inciting violence: and for threatning violence against a Chineese scientist by Doxing him: ) or neoconservative, neither of which advocates the free market or denounces violence. n.b., a free market is decentralized, global, and doesn't rely on conspiracies like the Fed. n.b., anti-violence means not threatening or intimidating people to do what you want them to do. The tone alone of of ZH is quite threatening -- for example doomsday pablum like this: .

Can someone provide some justification for calling a site "libertarian" ??? [--a concerned libertarian] 24.23.72.73 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Hi, the justification is in the references. Wikipedia simply summarizes what reliable sources say, and there are several that call Zero Hedge libertarian. POLITANVM ^talk 16:17, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your polite comment. Does this mean I can add "Russian trojan horse" to the list of adjectives? Or does this mean I can add "fake-news"? ZH doesn't call itself libertarian in its own manifesto so I don't see how the misinterpretation of libertarianism in the MSM is at all definitive. ZH claims to be a reliable source of unbiased, factual information--in fact, a news source. You are essentially saying that ZH is less reliable than Gizmodo or the Asia Times? That actually says a lot. Many people have called ZH many things, but that doesn't make any of them so. [--a concerned libertarian]24.23.72.73 (talk) 16:45, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The first article is a clearly labeled opinion piece, so it would only be appropriate to attribute that claim to that author. Your second source says that ZH spreads fake news, which is already well-covered in this Wikipedia article in slightly different terms (“conspiracy theories”, etc.) and there actually is a fake news category on this page. Self-published sources (like ZH’s about page) are only appropriate for un controversial claims (e.g. founding date), and clearly their claims of being a reliable news source is controversial. In this case, there are an abundance of reliable sources (Bloomberg News, Washington Post, and others) that support the way this article describes ZH. You can see at WP:ZEROHEDGE that the general consensus on Wikipedia is that ZH is not a reliable source.

You say these reliable sources misinterpret libertarianism, but that seems to be your own original research. POLITANVM ^talk 17:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Opinion pieces are not WP:RS to make a WP:POV statement. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 21:49, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

That is exactly what opinion pieces do, which is why we attribute them. A RS can be used to accurately document that someone has an opinion/POV, regardless of the quality of that opinion/POV. -- Valjean (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Referencing an opinion doesn't make it fact, regardless of attribution or authority. e.g. Gordon Ramsay said a Hershey chocolate bar tastes like vomit, but it's not in the lead of Hershey. Using subjective terminology within a statement of fact is logically invalid prose. Lexlex (talk) 11:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

In the article, the first 3 inline citations for saying “libertarian” aren’t opinion pieces. The last one (Gizmodo) is an opinion piece, so maybe it’s worth removing that inline citation from the claim about being “libertarian”. But there would still be three reliable sources for describing Zero Hedge as libertarian. Also, for context, the opinion piece I was talking about in this thread is the New Republic article (citation 4 on this page) shared by 24.23.72.73 . Politanvm ^talk 03:38, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2021

I'd suggest mentioning that the founder has a life time ban from the securities industry especially given that they hold strong opinions that they disseminate into that space via social media. Vectordumpling (talk) 18:11, 18 November 2021 (UTC) Vectordumpling (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

 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) 18:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

§ History and authorship already says that "In September 2009, news reports identified Daniel Ivandjiiski, a Bulgarian-born, U.S.-educated, former hedge-fund trader, who was barred from the securities industry in September 2008 for earning US$780 from an insider trade by FINRA, as the founder of the site, and reported that "Tyler Durden" was a pseudonym for Ivandjiiski." Kleinpecan (talk) 21:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Disparagement policy violation

"Far-right" is a disparaging and opinionated term. All referenced citations are from generally left-leaning organizations, and just because the label is used in those sources, does not mean it is not [[25]]. Objectively, if this sort of labeling is allowed, it rapidly diminishes wikipedia as a reasonable and non-political objective source. Is MSNBC labelled as "far-left" site? One can find several such citations, but it should not be labelled as such for the same objective reason. Policy violation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Disparaging 2600:6C50:A7F:6D4C:494A:988E:15B1:583 (talk) 00:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems there are a lot of sources for it, although I didnt go and look at the source's text. This type of bunded source situation is normally the result of TE, so I guess this has been at least well thought through. You might want to look at the sources and see if there are any that are not RS or do not say far right in them. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 10:20, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with calling Zerohedge “far right” however the Vanity Fair article states this, hence the inclusion. Devokewater ^(talk) 22:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a personal essay with only three edits, and it's about disparaging other editors, not about anything else. It's not a policy.

We document what RS say about ZeroHedge (which isn't pretty), and NPOV means we do not neuter or neutralize what they say.

The way we should deal with biased sources, the resulting biased content, and NPOV is explained in the essay at WP:YESBIAS. It's an in-depth treatment of the subject. -- Valjean (talk) 23:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

You can't possibly have 'Far-right' and 'Libertarian' within the same sentence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism. This sort of bias may affect the credibility of WP.23.24.168.17 (talk) 18:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 February 2022

Remove opinion-based adjectives like "far-right", "radical right", etc. This is highly subjective and does not belong in a factual article. And I say this as political indpendent/centrist. ArmchairArchitect (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: These descriptors are cited to several reliable sources. Kleinpecan (talk) 19:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Covid origin has not been confirmed, therefore citation for claims about promotion of conspiracy theories should be revised

The following should be removed: "including conspiracy theories and fringe rhetoric[27]". This citation for this is an article about the lab leak theory, which has recently been deemed as plausible and cannot be ruled out. Origins of covid have not been confirmed, therefore this is not a conspiracy theory and many news outlets have confirmed that the lab leak theory is possible.

https://www.npr.org/2021/07/15/1016436749/who-chief-wuhan-lab-covid-19-origin-premature-tedros https://www.npr.org/2021/06/17/1007539626/did-covid-19-leak-from-a-lab-a-reporter-investigates-and-finds-roadblocks https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-lab-leak-theory-of-covids-origin-is-not-totally-irrational/ ... More of these articles can be found with ease using google. The usage of the term "conspiracy theory" and "fringe rhetoric" are discrediting and imply that the facts are known. The facts around covid's origin are still being uncovered and it is pre-mature to label this as a conspiracy theory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.198.39.64 (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I've added a citation to a high-quality academic source that explains this better:

Another website that appeared regularly on both platforms was the far-right finance news website, ZeroHedge, which was cited 620 and 770 times on 8kun and Gab, respectively. ZeroHedge is infamous for making controversial commentaries on socio-political issues; during the pandemic, its Twitter account was suspended for propagating conspiratorial claims that blamed the Wuhan Institute of Virology for creating the novel coronavirus.

Zeng, Jing; Schäfer, Mike S. (21 October 2021). "Conceptualizing "Dark Platforms". Covid-19-Related Conspiracy Theories on 8kun and Gab". Digital Journalism. 9 (9). Routledge: 1321–1343. doi:10.1080/21670811.2021.1938165 – via Taylor & Francis.

According to the report, Zero Hedge's claims are conspiracy theories because they contain these themes:

• "Bio-engineered: conspiracy theories claiming that COVID-19 is man-made, either as a bio-weapon or part of a depopulation scheme."
• "Vaccination: conspiracy theories connecting the pandemic with anti-vaccination narratives. Related theories range from accusing Big Pharma of manipulating the health crisis to push mass vaccination programmes to claims that the COVID-19 vaccine will be used to implant nanochips."

The article's Table 2 shows that, on 8kun and Gab, Zero Hedge was the ninth- and tenth-most shared website for the "Vaccination" and "Bio-engineered" themed conspiracy theories, respectively. — Newslinger talk 12:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Epoch Times 2020-2021

Zero Hedge regularly reposts articles from Epoch Times. This entry doesn't offer any analysis of the Epoch Times (or Zero Hedge). The purpose is to note that the the free content on Zero Hedge is reposting or crediting Epoch Times for more content, more often than in the past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.188.130 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

The article does say in the first sentence that Zero Hedge is a "news aggregator". If there are reliable secondary sources that cover Zero Hedge's republication of content from The Epoch Times, please feel free to share these sources so that we can incorporate them into the article. — Newslinger talk 12:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 March 2022

Zero Hedge (or ZeroHedge)[b] is a libertarian[18] financial blog and news aggregator. 2A02:8085:B141:7D80:30D2:73B8:2174:DBC0 (talk) 00:09, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. The far-right descriptor is amply and reliably sourced in Special:Permalink/1076798459#cite_note-15. — Newslinger talk 02:20, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead: far, radical and alt-right description

The right wing epithets in the lead, describing ZeroHedge is a poor attempt to discredit the web site. There are plenty of published articles by journalists from the left and the centre. Wikipedia does itself no favours stigmatising anything right of centre in this type of emotive and defamatory way. ZeroHedge's content is predominantly free, so the use of pejorative and inflammatory phrases is pointless as well as deplorable. Long may Wikipedia leftist self appointed article gate-keepers show themselves up for what they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.197.225 (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

You need to assume good faith in our editors. That content is backed by MANY reliable sources. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:56, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 2 May 2022

Please change 'far right' to 'conservative'. Zero Hedge is highly critical, for instance, of far right neo-liberalism, centralised decision making, governmental secrecy, censorship, coercion and war - all of which tend to be increasingly supported by mainstream news media. It seems that the verbal framework for identifying fascists is being switched. Christopher Paton (talk) 14:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: see the above responses to the same requests. Also see WP:RS and WP:VNT Cannolis (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

@Christopher Paton: please see if you can create a list of high quality sources, think things like NYT, washingtonpost, sf chronicle, bloomberg, wsj, etc that use conservative instead of far right. We can then look at that and compare it to those using far right. We need to see some sources using conservative to create some balance (if it exists). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:15, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi, rather than ascribing Delphic authority to the media sources that you quote, it would be more rational and surely more conventional to go through a checklist of the norms that far-right organisations or publications are known for and see if they match up with Zero Hedge. If that process was fairly applied, I believe not only that ZH would be exonerated of far-rightness, but also that your oracles would find themselves in the dock. Christopher Paton (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

That would be an exercise in forbidden original research where editors' opinions and interpretations take precedence over what RS say. Our job is to document the latter. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

I dont know what Delphic Authority is, but please find high quality WP:RS, that is how we do things at wikipedia. It is indeed restritive, but that is how it works. Have a look at the list here at WP:RSP to get an idea of what is good to use and what isnt. If you can find sources that are not referring to the article subject as far right, we can include that per WP:NPOV. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 08:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Please change 'far right' description of Zero Hedge to 'libertarian'.

The only reason Zero Hedge has been labelled 'far right', according to the 'reliable sources' listed, is because one or more articles it carried speculated on the possibility that Covid-19 may have been generated in a Chinese lab. At the time, this alone was enough to get ZH condemned as racist (no other empirical evidence was cited), but six months or so later, these same sources were publicly speculating on the exact same possibility. I have been advised to sift through these and similar media publications to see whether they have retracted their slur (or, perhaps, admitted to being themselves 'far right'), but consider that to be an exercise in futility. Surely, it's more reasonable and rational to check the attribution against conventional definitions rather than treat mainstream media as some kind of ultimate authority. Do that and you will find that ZH does not conform to any known definition of 'far right' - not any dictionary definition, nor indeed Wikipedia's own definition. Christopher Paton (talk) 20:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

While Zerohedge received a lot of press labeling it far-right because of Covid-19 conspiracies, they are also labeled as far-right in the current citations about other topics (Charlottesville Car Attack, Black Lives Matter protests conspiracies, hoax about fines for taking a shower and doing laundry at the same time). Outside of the current citations, they've also been labeled as far-right in articles about spreading Chinese and Russian propaganda. It's hard to make a case for removing "far-right" when that description is used nearly every time they come up in reliable sources. Like Valjean said a few weeks ago, doing our own analysis and research on the meaning of "far-right" and whether Zerohedge meets that definition would be original research. Even if media sources are misrepresenting Zerohedge, Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs. Politanvm ^talk 20:56, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, this is isn't about righting great wrongs but about misinformation/disinformation and, beyond that, censorship.

It doesn't take any analysis or research. If Wikipedia's article on what 'far-right' means is correct, the labelling of ZH as 'far-right' is not. One or the other is false and should be corrected.

And, with all due respect, I have to take issue with what you regard as 'reliable sources'. These sources also, like ZH, published what you label 'Covid-19 conspiracies'. And they also spread disinformation, for instance, about Iraq's WMDs.

Then, taking your links in turn, the first labels ZH as 'far-right' on the grounds that some views on its comments pages were far-right. If that is the qualifying bar, then every media publication on the planet would be guilty.

The second derived from an allegation by a shady Blairite 'charity' that is most notable for discrediting British socialism.

The third didn't look serious enough to go through the paywall. The fourth might be propaganda or might not: the US has a long, extremely well documented record of hijacking protests in foreign countries. (Pls check US national archives). And the fifth is from VoiceOfAmerica - itself an active well-known propagandist.

These do not qualify as 'reliable sources'.

Moreover, mis-characterising ZH as 'far-right' is an oblique form of censorship, because most people (who are not) will be repelled by the term. And it further undermines the reputation of Wikipedia as a reliable source of information.

The issue of Wikipedia's prioritising the unsupported assertions of a corporate media echo-chamber over independents is another issue that needs addressing on another day.

Christopher Paton (talk) 13:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Discussing your opinion of something will not bring change. Please do the work to create a list of WP:RS that show that ZH is also referred to as libertarian in the sources. If it is balance, then we can make a change. If Editors refuse to make the change, we can run an WP:RFC. But discussing our opinions here wont bring any change. You can add those sources here to this talk page, and put in the exact text from the source here (no need the who sentence, maybe a word or three). Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Title

The site uses the name ZeroHedge (without the space). 24.51.192.49 (talk) 08:04, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Do more sources use the unspaced variant per WP:COMMONNAME? Dronebogus (talk) 09:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

Zerohedge should be labelled fake news website

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disclose.tv -> Zerohedge has been publishing dissinformation, missinformation, conspiracy theorists for a long time yet they call it "far right libertarian". So, Zerohedge who even posted articles talking about The Great Awakening and Trump saving the world is "far right libertarian" but Disclosetv is fake news, conspiracy theorist and far right even though: Currrently has not published anything in regards to ufos, they do not pick a side in politics (unlike Zerohedge who is absolutely pro russian pro chinese and argues that impeding doom is upon westerner countries in their "economical analysises" every day) and in regards to "dissinformation" arguing that they published two or 3 articles with wrong data even though they have write thousands of them seems to be simply a slander. According to this wikipedia article a vast ammount of digital newspapers and mainstream communication channels spreads dissiformation and fake news. It is obvious this article neeeds a revision. Zerohedge has done way worse things but still the article treats them with way too much respect. This article should state the same things as the one of the article of disclosetv. It is very obvious. 176.84.229.208 (talk) 22:13, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. TheDarkX (talk) 16:32, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Given the "far right" label seems to be exclusively based on taking a narrative-critical stance around COVID-19, and that it is now abundantly clear the mainstream narrative was itself ridden with propaganda, false claims, misrepresentations of data, fraudulant representation of data and, above all, the slanderous censorship of critical voices which turned out to be accurate in their critiques, surely now is time to remove the "far right" moniker from this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.194.146 (talk) 17:04, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

The far right label is because of many reason. Including their articles claiming Trump is Jesus Christ Reincarnated. 176.84.229.188 (talk) 03:35, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

• Agree* - see next section titled "Plagiarism & Falsified News story promoted by Elon Musk"

Plagiarism & Falsified News story promoted by Elon Musk

Elon Musk is now promoting Zero Hedge stories, including (with Epoch Times) plagiarizing a PBS story about a 3K protest march to Mexico City, then falsely changing the headline to be a 3K person immigrant "caravan" to "US border".

Musk then boosted this & other stories, and his "Community Notes" won't correct it

Does anyone have 2ndary source by which this plagiarism, falsification, & amplification can be added to our article? MBUSHIstory (talk) 18:20, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Daniel Ivandjiiski into Zero Hedge

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.

I am convinced Ivanjiiski fails WP:BIO. Now at AfD. Withdrawn. Schierbecker (talk) 23:49, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

---

Ivandjiiski has no independent notability from Zero Hedge. Content can easily be merged here. Schierbecker (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

• Keep I've nominated CEO and founder BLPs in the past and they were always speedy keep as there is a policy to keep the BLPs of founder/ceo types. Trying to remember the policy link but it is slipping my mind, maybe someone else can link to it (and please ping me, as I would like to remember it). There is plenty of content on this article that is biographical and merge would not be encyclopedic, as the pseudonym he writes under is Tyler Durden, and that is used by a number of writers. Therefore the article subject is no solely the Zero Hedge article. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf (talk) 03:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• I'm not aware of such a policy, but I think the biographical article fails WP:BIO. plenty of content on this article that is biographical and merge would not be encyclopedic. I agree that it needs to be cut down. [...] and that is used by a number of writers. Therefore the article subject is no solely the Zero Hedge article. I don't agree. Tim Backshall (credit analyst), is another who writes under that pseudonym. Should his article not retirect here? Notice that I am suggesting that Daniel Ivandjiiski be merged into Zero Hedge, not vice versa. It is not necessary for Ivandjiiski to be the sole author in order for his entry to redirect here. Ken White redirects to Popehat, Randeep Hothi redirects to TSLAQ. This makes sense. Like Jim Hoft, neither of these individuals is notable for accomplishments outside their main pursuit. Is it necessary for each member of Blue Man Group to have their own article too? Schierbecker (talk) 06:18, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

• Merge. The article cites 14 sources. 8 are unacceptable primary sources. The two most-cited sources are about ZeroHedge, and only mention him as a tangent. The only three sources that provide significant coverage of him were all published on the exact same day (WP:RSBREAKING, which should never be the basis for a whole BLP), and are all about him in relation to ZeroHedge. See WP:NOPAGE. DFlhb (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Suggest maintaining Daniel Ivandjiiski as a separate entity with reference links into any works or affiliation with ZH. The two are distinctly different and works generated by ZH other contributors should not be directly associated with a publication's founder or other authors. By Example, you will see other publication Founders and their creations listed separately George Jones / New York Times. 216.66.120.111 (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

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.