Talk:AlterNet

message: I removed this section, for several reason. (1) 'Trivia' sections are discouraged on WP (2) I am sure there are many, many cases when Alternet was mentioned by some notable people - becuase if that was not the case, then Alternet's notability would be questionable.  (3) the particular reference was to Alternet's own site - a blog at that! - and was overly self-promotional. Isarig 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trivia

message: Would it be acceptable to note that in several instances, articles within AlterNet.org appear to be written by shills with a strongly conservative agenda? 
Case in point: "A Critical Look at the Forced Spread of Democracy" http://www.alternet.org/audits/82716/ The writer claims repeatedly to have a liberal/progressive agenda, but the main thrust of the article is, in order of reading, a) claiming that Bush's invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq are an effort to spread democracy, b) that liberals support the idea of using force as a method of spreading democracy, and that c) liberals should NOT support the United nations. These are decidedly far right wing talking ideals, not at all liberal. 
Another case in point: "If We All Started Driving Priuses, We'd Consume More Energy Than Ever Before" http://www.alternet.org/environment/84982/?page=5 which uses nonsequitor arguments to convince readers that the past few decades have been evidence to show that increased interest in alternative fuel sources and energy conservation lead to MORE fuel consumption (not less). The author's most recent book endorses free market forces in the oil industry and argues against alternative fuels like Ethanol, and is lauded by at least one pro-oil-industry lobbyist in Washington. In short, it's written like a propaganda piece for the American oil industry.
If AlterNet is not entirely the liberal/progressive news center that it claims to be, Wikipedia should take a NPOV and say so.61.7.138.6 (talk) 03:24, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If the overall tone is liberal/progressive, and it has a small amount of non-liberal/progressive (I don't know if that's the case or not, I just found the site), it might be advisable to change the description to something like "generally liberal/progressive" to indicate that that may not always be the case. --Dreikin (talk) 17:59, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: alternet is liberal/progressive like dr. pepper is a real surgeon.  maybe its their attemp to be fox news style 'fair and balanced', if thats the case, they have their fair and balanced share of neo-con mixed in with their liberalism.  i suggest that any labels that this site is politically oriented one way or another be removed. 141.54.138.169 (talk) 22:35, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Truly liberal, or occasionally pushing neocon talking points?

message: I sometimes get the impression that, along with other left-wing newspapers like the Guardian, Alternet is secretly backing an Islamist agenda. It has written several articles on the subject.   ADM (talk) 01:17, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Those articles do not appear to support an "Islamist agenda" any more than an article discussing how mainstream Catholics don't really support child molesters would be supporting a "Catholic agenda", or an how article about how most whites aren't racist would be supporting a "white agenda".  Do you have articles where they outright say, for example, that they support fundamentalist terrorist muslims (which I assume is part of what you mean by Islamist agenda)?  Also, a few articles may not be representative of the whole, and/or may have been allowed through to provide a counterpoint or Opinions & Editorials type article, so it'd be nice to see a common pattern of such support if it does exist. --Dreikin (talk) 17:54, 12 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Drekin, username ADM is projecting his own anti-Islam bigotry and claiming anything standing up for Islamic minorities must be part of some grand Islamic agenda conspiracy. Nothing on Alternet is advocating terrorism rather than differentiating the difference between terrorism which is not Islamic and real Islamic people. 24.46.60.24 (talk) 01:28, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Position on Islam

message: - I changed the text from "workable solutions" to "solutions".  The reason is that it's a weasel word.  Every advocacy group, of any ideological disposition, advocates what they view as "workable solutions".  Think about it - is any group going to advocate "unworkable solutions"?  No - every group will always claim they have "workable solutions" to the problems that bedevil society.  The word "workable" is a non-neutral weasel word because it implies that the group using the word has the answers.  Should a right-wing group be believed if they claim they have "workable solutions"?  If not, why should a leftist group be believed when they claim they have "workable solutions"?  The truth is that the word implies the group using it has some claim to the truth, that they have the answer that eludes everyone else, which is just an untrue, non-neutral assertion.  That's why I changed it to "solutions".  68.200.60.31 (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection here... it may not fall under WP:WEASEL, but it is certainly superfluous.  //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:51, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Weasel word

message: Most people have never heard of AlterNet. The grotesquely racist attack by Chauncey DeVega was major news that brought AlterNet to public awareness. I posted on the issue, yet somehow I am "making a point" and non-neutral for posting objective facts with references? What is it with Wikipedia being so absolutely comfortable with EVIL yet so scared of TRUTH (truth is actually against Wikipedia guidelines - it's true, look it up). Is there an Honestpedia anywhere? Jwbaumann (talk) 04:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Racism 

message: An image used in this article, File:AlterNet logo MED.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
* If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:AlterNet logo MED.gif)
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:20, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:AlterNet logo MED.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

message: Can anyone point me to a discussion on how Alternet is seen in terms of being a reliable source on WP? Or discuss this here?MrBill3 (talk) 07:09, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: To discuss Reliable Sources one would go to  Reliable Sources Noticeboard. One could then search for discussions in the archives or begin a new section. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Use of Alternet as a source on WP

message: ... as an "alternative news source"? It's as mainstream as they come. Nurse, nurse my sides!  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:4C8:140F:7E07:1:1:3888:C2D1 (talk) 12:20, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I am going to have to agree I think both the Guardian and Al Jazeera English are not alternative media in any form. I will be removing that. Davidgarcia84 (talk) 02:58, 25 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Guardian 

message: Maybe you can confirm or correct us on this matter. These edits changed ownership of AlterNet from Alternet Media, Inc to Raw Story (in two places). Could you please tell us which is correct? (People seem to often get confused between brands, product names, and corporate names.) Grorp (talk) 01:52, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, @Grorp. AlterNet is owned by AlterNet Media, not Raw Story, though, as noted, they share common ownership. The ownership is referenced here: https://www.alternet.org/2020/09/meet-the-alternet-staff-2647453134 JByrne404 (talk) 20:50, 23 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's what I thought. Restored. Grorp (talk) 00:13, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership/acquisition?