Talk:FrontPage Magazine

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale.

This article was nominated for deletion on July 16 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article was nominated for deletion on February 8 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

Contents 1 Page Needs Attention 2 Blog 3 I strongly object to this deletion 4 Frontpage--a mere ezine? 5 Restored section 6 Article name, again 7 Requested move 7.1 Survey 7.2 Discussion 8 Website outage 9 Arman vs Poole 10 Reliable sources discusssion 11 Man of the Year

[edit] Page Needs Attention

This page reads like an advertisement for its topic. skywriter 15:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

How so? It seems an accurate description and I dont see anything that could be considered as too biased towards FrontPageMag DarthJesus 03:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blog

This web site is a blog. Though calling itself "magazine" it does not produce a dead tree edition and its entries are blogged. Skywriter 15:51, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

There are many exclusively online magazines, FPM is not a blog. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 15:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I strongly object to this deletion

I strongly object to this deletion request.[1] I think this article should be kept. Travb (talk) 03:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Why should it be kept? -Will Beback · † · 04:33, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Needs some sources. [2] is a good start. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 04:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Will Beback, thanks for asking. I think this webpage is notable enough:

• frontpagemag has 871,000 hits on google.[3]
• 15 hits on google news[4]
• 106 hits on google print [5]
• 324 hits on LexisNexis (database of magazines and newspapers)

I will add Night Gyr source to this article.

Hope this clarifies my vague statment. Travb (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -Will Beback · † · 07:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still not convinced that the article passes WP:SPAM or WP:WEB, although I agree with GabrielF that AfD is more appropriate for this article than the prod process. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've seen frontpagemag used as a source in many WP articles, and it appears to pass WP:RS for that use. Just my two cents. - Crockspot 21:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

What articles cite it? It is very questionable under WP:RS; see the section that states:

“

Partisan and religious sources: The websites, print media, and other publications of political parties and religious groups should be treated with caution, although neither political affiliation nor religious belief is in itself a reason not to use a source. Extremist sources: Extremist organizations and individuals, whether of a political, religious, racist, or other character, should be used only as primary sources; that is, they should only be used as sources about themselves and their activities, and even then should be used with caution.

”

By many definitons, frontpagemag is affiliated with an extremist or extremely partisan organization. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 22:24, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for crying out loud. There aren't supposed to be Wikipedia articles on partisan organizations? Don't confuse WP:RS with WP:N, and for the latter see [6]. Compare [7]. This article is a stub, but so what? Andyvphil 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Past arguments:

• There are over 50 discrete articles on wikipedia linking to the page in question, with further supports usefulness, if not notability per se.
• Over 1 million google hits [8] when excluding the domain name variations.
• Mentions in other outlets as a leading source for its associated political group [9]
• In fact, the bourgeois revolution has been joined by such prominent neocon institutions as National Review, the Weekly Standard, and, indeed, Frontpagemag.com...[10] Lew Rockwell
• Past AfD[11].

Please let me know if I should invite some of those folks to the discussion, perhaps they can elaborate on what convinced them to keep on the last AfD. --NuclearZer0 13:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Frontpage--a mere ezine?

Frontpage is just one more rightwing, apologetic Zionist ezine that claims, probably correctly, having been visited by 1.5 million readers--without disclosing whether or not such readers were referred by rightwing, religious Zionist ezines (e.g. Arutz Sheva) and the like.

It’s editor, David Horowitz, is just one more windbag that has changed political affiliation when expedient with his own political agenda and purse. To claim that Frontpage is merely an online “political magazine” is obfuscating its extremist, partisan and religious sources—one might as well claim that Streicher’s "Der Stürmer" was merely a German weekly. The present entry on Frontpage is a pr placement at best, at worst it is an utterly delusional falsification of facts.

divinus divinum divinat (talk) 18:03, 12 February 2008 (UTC) 07:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Restored section

I restored: FrontPageMag editors, columnists, and contributors. No policy was mentioned in its removal. I always edit from the standpoint that more information in an article is better than less. Especially a section this interesting. Travb (talk) 14:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article name, again

As user:Andyvphil noted in an edit summary, this organisation has a web page at http://www.frontpagemag.com/Contact/Contact.asp in which they give their name as "FrontPage Magazine". Sigh. On the other hand, the banner at the top of that very same page says "FRONTPAGEMAG.COM". Deeper sigh. So I reluctantly suggest that the article should be renamed to "FrontPage magazine" (without the ".com" suffix) and should begin something like this:

FrontPage magazine (also known as FRONTPAGEMAG.COM) is an online ...

where I've used <small> on the alternate title. What do other editors think? CWC(talk) 13:36, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I just went ahead and changed the first sentence as suggested, except capitalizing the "M". See my comment on the proposed move, however. Andyvphil 09:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Website outage

The http://www.frontpagemag.com/ domain is working again, so I've edited the article to remove our coverage of the outage. For interest, I've copied it here.

At the end of the lede section, we had:

On April 27, 2007, the ninth anniversary of its launch, the site went down, apparently due to a failure to extend its Domain Name Registration. See External Links.

The "External links" section was:

• FrontPageMag.com

down Friday April 27, 2007 to date (last checked, Monday April 31) due to "technical difficulties". Instead use www.frontpagemagazine.com.[16] Note that April 27 is the anniversary of the launch date -- it seems that the domain name registration may have been, for some reason, not renewed.[17]

I've added http://www.frontpagemagazine.com/ as an external link with the description "Alternate name for the same website", just in case.

Cheers, CWC 10:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arman vs Poole

I've moved the following paragraph from the article to here for discussion. It was the entire content of the "Criticism" section.

Abukar Arman has criticized the publication as "Islamophobic" and a "pseudo news outlet," condemning them for "hyperbolic" arguments and "paranoia-driven logic" writing, "FrontPage Magazine has dedicated three or so articles aimed to smear this writer and activist's name, along with other Muslims of good community standing. All three vicious diatribes were authored by the same man, Patrick Poole - an obscure character who apparently specializes in maligning Muslims and Islamic organizations."<ref>Abukar Arman. "Islamophobia and the specter of neo-McCarthyism", Middle East Times, July 19, 2007. Retrieved on 2007-07-27. </ref> <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=29250</ref>

This appears to be a spat between Patrick Poole ("an author and public policy researcher"[18]) and Abukar Arman ("a Freelance Writer who lives in Ohio, USA"). Arman's attack seems to be aimed primarily at Poole, not FPM. Moreover, his attack seems to be a routine call-them-Islamaphobes smear job. ISTM that this conflict is not relevant to this article.

I'm sure there is plenty of room for substantive criticism of FPM, but I cannot recall seeing any. If anyone finds some, please add it to the article. Cheers, CWC 07:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Follow-up: The redlink to Patrick Poole had two refs attached: <ref>http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/authors.asp?ID=3597</ref> and <ref>http://patrickpoole.blogspot.com/</ref>. I've moved them here for future ...er... reference. CWC 07:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems there was a brief edit war over this and it ended up restored. I mostly agree with CWC as to the actual meaningfulness of the crit (although I would keep the Poole refs), but don't mind leaving it in... Andyvphil 22:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources discusssion

There is a discussion whether Front Page is a Wikipedia reliable source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#FrontPage Magazine .28again.29. Perhaps people familiar with this topic would be able to contribute useful information, although for some reason notification such as this has not been done. (SEWilco 14:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Man of the Year

Without some sort of introduction or alleged controversy, why are only the 2007 & 2003 "Man (persons) of the Year" listed? I suggest either including all of the FPM Men of the Year, or remove the section entirely. Biccat (talk) 19:57, 30 April 2008 (UTC)