Talk:Human Events

Untitled
What is supposed to be meant by "patriotic conservative magazine"? SterlingNorth 23:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You know, the flag-waving, in your face, my-country-right-or-wrong variety; how dare you ask such a question, you liberal PC demagogue! I jest, I think...but you're right, the term isn't neutral. I think their tagline is "America's conservative weekly since 1944," which should suffice.
 * This article still needs expansion. Any details available on circulation? Layout? (I believe it's currently broadsheet.) Criticism? Relation to the so-called mainstream media? (Of course the Left sees it as a cog in the VRWC, but surely there are specific critiques out there.) All the same, best to watch POV when categorizing HE and not just take the magazine's word for it.
 * Pas tri cide!  Non-absorbing 16:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Amanda Carpenter deserves her own page. She is a noteworthy writer.

This page says little to nothing about the magazine, the editors, the contributors, history, or political flavor. It comes off liberally biased, and is worthless as far as information is concerned, needs to be expanded and and re-worked.

What's up with the top ten list?
To me, the top list just seems like a way to take a stab at certain books. Why is there this big a** top ten list when the article itself doesn't have much content.--M4bwav 15:20, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Other articles, such as Rachel Carson, refer to books being on the list. I think that it makes sense to have the list here as a way to show gormless readers (e.g., me) what the list is made up of.--Hjal 19:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I personally think it's perfect. If insane neo-cons who have absolutely no respect for human life and would gladly murder children, and they do, to fulfill their agenda don't like theese books... that means theese books are a must read for anyone sane.

Thanks crazy neo-cons :) 10 great books to read this weekend. Jokes aside, I doubt I will get much insight from Mein Kampf, but I do understand why neocons would put it together with Marx on a list. Gives idiots with association ability wrong ideas.

213.141.89.53 (talk) 13:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Considering there are 14 books "honorably mentioned" above Silent Spring on the list, I think it's quite misleading to have that listed without the others. 24.184.97.102 (talk) 04:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The longer list was previously there--see the history or click this: . Some people didn't like it and the list was cut back and then, I think, expanded a bit. This is a little POV or OR, but I think that the list is opposed by some people who don't like seeing things they like dissed (this could inlcude Old Reds, Nazis, us moonbats, and God knows who else), and by others (some of whom identify themselves as conservatives or libertarians) who might think that the list makes people anywhere near HE on the political spectrum look like wingnuts. I think that the whole list should be there, but it would unbalance the article even more.--Hjal (talk) 04:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

1944
So when in 1944? On what grounds did it support Thomas E. Dewey? (No need to ask if it did.) And did it support a separate peace? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Paleo or neo?
Which is it? Stonemason89 (talk) 21:30, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Problematic phrasing and WP:IMPARTIAL tone
Proper grammar dictates that the use of an adjective is relative to the context of the sentence. I corrected the following sentence which was quickly reverted with an edit summary of “nah”.Original sentence is : “Human events announced that conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec had been hired as senior editor.” Which I edited to: “Human events announced that Jack Posobiec, a conservative commentator was hired as senior editor.”

as well as added a reliable source stating he is a conservative commentator.

My primary argument is that WP:Synthesis was used to formulate that sentence, because there is no WP:RS that specifically states Human Events hired Jack Posobiec because he is a Conspiracy Theorist. (The source states quite the opposite).

The editor who reverted and I discussed the revert on their talk page; but they failed to refute my arguments and refused to self revert. Here’s some bullet points from the talk page discussion.

There is no source material that states Human Events hired him because he is a conspiracy theorist, to infer this is original research WP:OR. Of the three cited sources,there is this HE article that covers his hiring as a thought leader. You have a WP:GUNREL Daily Beast article that talks about him being hired at Turning Point USA,(No mention of Human events) and lastly a NYT article that has no relevance to Human Events hiring him. So why is it being used as a citation source in the Human events article?

– which brings me to this discussion, the reasoning to push the conspiracy theory narrative on Posobiec is really weak, especially on Human Events’ page. It changes the WP:IMPARTIAL tone, for what? Whats the point? Does this add to the article?

This is the Human Events article and the sentence states that they hired a senior editor. Adding an adjective in front of the subject’s name is appropriate when that description is relevant to the context of the sentence – that is to say, what qualities does the subject have that Human Events desires in a Senior Editor.

Human Events is a conservative media outlet. So why use “Conspiracy Theorist” as an adjective to describe a new Senior Editor at Human Events? WP:COMMONSENSE. But also these days, “Conspiracy Theorist” has been turned into a toxic, slanderous expression; so we need to be very careful when using this phrase in addition to being WP:Synthesis. There is no justification to use "Conspiracy Theorist" and slander Human Events; a better fix would "Thought Leader" per the source cited. MaximusEditor (talk) 21:45, 24 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Posobiec's heavily sourced lead says:


 * Naturally, Human Events, which hired him, describes him in a statement on their site (which is a primary source cited here only to confirm he had been hired) as a "thought leader," because they certainly wouldn't want to describe him as numerous reliable secondary sources do. soibangla (talk) 22:44, 24 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting Jack Posobiec’s lead sentence here – but out of all the choices available, why do you insist on selecting “Conspiracy Theorist” when a better, more WP:IMPARTIAL/appropriate choice for the WP:TONE of the Human Events article would be any of the following “Political activist, television correspondent or presenter”. You are stating that Posobiecs lead paragraph is “heavily sourced” yet I’m seeing words like “internet troll”, which kind of makes this lead paragraph hard to take seriously.  It seems that the ridiculous almost WP:TABLOID/clickbait, WP:Sensationalism themes of Posobiecs lead paragraph concern me to question the veracity of all the cited sources, seems to be a WP:REDFLAG disaster waiting to happen.  MaximusEditor (talk) 01:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Maybe you can bring this up on his Talk page. He is no longer with OANN which is "known for promoting falsehoods and conspiracy theories," so maybe "television correspondent or presenter" can be removed now. This leaves "political activist" which is rooted primarily in his history as a "conspiracy theorist" and "internet troll," as heavily sourced. soibangla (talk) 02:31, 29 September 2021 (UTC)