![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Note: this stub, "WorldNetDaily" and the article "World Net Daily" appear to describe the same thing, though with some unique content in each; they should be combined.
Any objections to me moving the content from World Net Daily here and making World Net Daily into a redirect to WorldNetDaily?
-- RobbieFal 02:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
No POV in the article, but there is facts. Same goes for the NewsMax article. If someone doesn't like the incorrect stories (all three examples), take it up with the WND website not the Wiki article. It is not point of view to show that the source has repeatedly offered incorrect articles to the public. -FK
Whereas a view of the World Net Daily site will indeed reveal links to external articles, it seems the site itself produces quite a large amount of articles in-house. Unless there is blatant plagiary in the works, the majority of the articles listed are attributed to WND and are marked as "Exclusive". All articles seem to have their sources listed directly underneath their hyperlinked titles. The allegation that World Net Daily is a News clipping service only seems unsubstantiated without proof and sources. A casual glance at the site seems to imply the opposite, as I keep running into references that claim that major networks glean articles from WND. However I have been unable to find the source of this claim, and therefore will not include it in this stub. -- Coldbourne 08:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow the page has a title, intro and a huge section called "Misinformation." Hardly NPOV Barneygumble 21:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
World net daily controversy is now merged with WND. Arbustoo 21:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
What's with this huge "Misinformation" section? Seems like a negative diatribe against this particular site and is out of place. Maybe it could have been a link of its own to another page called: "What I personally disagree with WND about." instead of cluttering up actual topical information here. Could you imagine if someone put a huge list of everything they found wrong with every media outlet in every Wiki article? What a mess. Keep that garbage to your personal blog which you can impress your friends with. Dozens of examples of a specific point makes for dull, pointless, redundancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.50 ( talk • contribs)
I agree with the above sentiments. Wikipedia articles should be brief and concise, but there may be plenty of external links expressing opinions or reporting incidents such as alluded to above. If every skirmish such as these were posted as a result of WND's independent journalism causing scandal or controversy, there would be end to this article because of addenda ad infinitum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGabbard ( talk • contribs)
This article needs to be rewritten because of poor writing AND bias. Can presenting facts be biased? Of course it can. If I include a section "Heinous Crimes Committed by Tasmanians" in an article about Tasmania, it would (hopefully) be removed ,though factual. Unless inaccurate reporting is generally accepted as a defining characteristic of WND, rather that just controversial, then itemizing inaccuracies should not be done. If the controversies about WND are especially notable, i.e., would be conspicuous by their absence from the article, then the controversies themselves could be briefly described (examples unnecessary) in a separate section entitled "Controversies". But even then one must be careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.50 ( talk • contribs)
The other stuff if just grammar and syntax and could be easily corrected.
In early 2006 WND ran an article alleging that the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations were involved in a conspiracy with "centuries old secret societies" to subvert the United States to one world religion and government.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49197]
Comment: this is false. The said "article" is actually a book offering.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.70.139 ( talk • contribs)
I've removed and/or replaced several obviously POV descriptors with more tame language. There still remains work to be done, however.
As it stands now, the article would appear to be a forum wherein any possibility of WND publishing a story with even one ounce of veracity seems to be excluded. If someone deems this the place to, on balance, record every known instance of WND's able reporting, then the Controversy section should remain by all means. However, and I feel this is more probably the case, if it is judged that this entry is not the place for such a litany, said section (and sub-sections) should be removed. Please follow with comments.
On to my next task of recording and adding every NY Times misprint and retraction to that entry. Hectard 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Several IP addresses keep adding that WND ignores basic journalistic standards. Please make your case here. The citation that follows the statement does not show this - WND is merely reporting that a television station reported something. You might say that any story involving a UFO is sensational, which is why I haven't touched that statement, at least for now. A citation of "harsh criticism" of WND is still needed, but I at least believe that. Kc8ukw 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the definition of a "blog" does not apply to WND. WND is way above that. It is an independent virtual newspaper with journalistic standards and many different writers, including some stationed in news hotspots like the Middle East, for example. I want to edit out the assertion that WND is a blog because it is a website of much higher standing than any blog one might name. Any objections? 74.102.58.135 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's been a few days since I posted my intentions and received no objections, and one agreement (Thanks Kc8ukw). So I have made the change I proposed. (My decision not to get a username here at Wikipedia is a personal decision, but thanks for the invitation just the same.) 74.102.58.135 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I added section on Soy making kids 'gay' as further example of logical failure and ideologically driven reporting from WND. Mcas 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this section, as I don't think it an appropriate addition to the article. It is not an example of a controversy, especially as the article is new and has gone largely unnoticed. It is controversial, but so are a hundred articles WND has written - we have highlighted four big cases. Adding more, especially of this level, is unnecessary and just makes the article longer, but not more enlightening. Kc8ukw 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the soy article generated more interest than I thought it would: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53425 . Kc8ukw 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"WorldNetDaily claims to be "the largest independent, full-service newssite in the world."[7]."
Link goes to a 2004 WND article, (not a RS V secondary source) dead Alexa links and claims from Farrah himself. If it was a valid claim in 2004, it no longer is, as asserted. WND also is not as popular as several 'liberal' sites, and this might be important to include. [2] More claims in need of attention coming! - F.A.A.F.A. 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
So perhaps that could be changed to, "In 2004, WND claimed..." Otherwise I think it is fine. WND is making the claim, not Wikipedia. We're just reporting it. Kc8ukw 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed two sections on controversial articles for the following reasons:
1. They were written with definite POV.
2. They make sweeping generalizations, and...
3. They were written entirely with ConWebWatch as a source, and as this website seems to be the work of one man, I don't believe it meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements.
4. As I've said before, I think we are giving undue weight to criticism on WND, in violation of the NPOV policy, since hundreds of thousands of people use the site everyday without complaint. I do, however, recognize that controversies are more newsworthy here than daily stories, so I think the remaining four sections are important and will try to make them as well written as possible.
Kc8ukw
04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Those sections have been readded, so I now list the four points above as reasons they should be removed. Please comment. Kc8ukw 05:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
For reference, the sections involved are:
Kc8ukw
05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
As there has been no comment or objection after nearly 4 days, I am again removing the sections. Kc8ukw 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Note: this stub, "WorldNetDaily" and the article "World Net Daily" appear to describe the same thing, though with some unique content in each; they should be combined.
Any objections to me moving the content from World Net Daily here and making World Net Daily into a redirect to WorldNetDaily?
-- RobbieFal 02:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
No POV in the article, but there is facts. Same goes for the NewsMax article. If someone doesn't like the incorrect stories (all three examples), take it up with the WND website not the Wiki article. It is not point of view to show that the source has repeatedly offered incorrect articles to the public. -FK
Whereas a view of the World Net Daily site will indeed reveal links to external articles, it seems the site itself produces quite a large amount of articles in-house. Unless there is blatant plagiary in the works, the majority of the articles listed are attributed to WND and are marked as "Exclusive". All articles seem to have their sources listed directly underneath their hyperlinked titles. The allegation that World Net Daily is a News clipping service only seems unsubstantiated without proof and sources. A casual glance at the site seems to imply the opposite, as I keep running into references that claim that major networks glean articles from WND. However I have been unable to find the source of this claim, and therefore will not include it in this stub. -- Coldbourne 08:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
Wow the page has a title, intro and a huge section called "Misinformation." Hardly NPOV Barneygumble 21:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
World net daily controversy is now merged with WND. Arbustoo 21:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
What's with this huge "Misinformation" section? Seems like a negative diatribe against this particular site and is out of place. Maybe it could have been a link of its own to another page called: "What I personally disagree with WND about." instead of cluttering up actual topical information here. Could you imagine if someone put a huge list of everything they found wrong with every media outlet in every Wiki article? What a mess. Keep that garbage to your personal blog which you can impress your friends with. Dozens of examples of a specific point makes for dull, pointless, redundancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.50 ( talk • contribs)
I agree with the above sentiments. Wikipedia articles should be brief and concise, but there may be plenty of external links expressing opinions or reporting incidents such as alluded to above. If every skirmish such as these were posted as a result of WND's independent journalism causing scandal or controversy, there would be end to this article because of addenda ad infinitum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGabbard ( talk • contribs)
This article needs to be rewritten because of poor writing AND bias. Can presenting facts be biased? Of course it can. If I include a section "Heinous Crimes Committed by Tasmanians" in an article about Tasmania, it would (hopefully) be removed ,though factual. Unless inaccurate reporting is generally accepted as a defining characteristic of WND, rather that just controversial, then itemizing inaccuracies should not be done. If the controversies about WND are especially notable, i.e., would be conspicuous by their absence from the article, then the controversies themselves could be briefly described (examples unnecessary) in a separate section entitled "Controversies". But even then one must be careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.50 ( talk • contribs)
The other stuff if just grammar and syntax and could be easily corrected.
In early 2006 WND ran an article alleging that the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations were involved in a conspiracy with "centuries old secret societies" to subvert the United States to one world religion and government.[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49197]
Comment: this is false. The said "article" is actually a book offering.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.70.139 ( talk • contribs)
I've removed and/or replaced several obviously POV descriptors with more tame language. There still remains work to be done, however.
As it stands now, the article would appear to be a forum wherein any possibility of WND publishing a story with even one ounce of veracity seems to be excluded. If someone deems this the place to, on balance, record every known instance of WND's able reporting, then the Controversy section should remain by all means. However, and I feel this is more probably the case, if it is judged that this entry is not the place for such a litany, said section (and sub-sections) should be removed. Please follow with comments.
On to my next task of recording and adding every NY Times misprint and retraction to that entry. Hectard 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Several IP addresses keep adding that WND ignores basic journalistic standards. Please make your case here. The citation that follows the statement does not show this - WND is merely reporting that a television station reported something. You might say that any story involving a UFO is sensational, which is why I haven't touched that statement, at least for now. A citation of "harsh criticism" of WND is still needed, but I at least believe that. Kc8ukw 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
I think that the definition of a "blog" does not apply to WND. WND is way above that. It is an independent virtual newspaper with journalistic standards and many different writers, including some stationed in news hotspots like the Middle East, for example. I want to edit out the assertion that WND is a blog because it is a website of much higher standing than any blog one might name. Any objections? 74.102.58.135 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
It's been a few days since I posted my intentions and received no objections, and one agreement (Thanks Kc8ukw). So I have made the change I proposed. (My decision not to get a username here at Wikipedia is a personal decision, but thanks for the invitation just the same.) 74.102.58.135 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I added section on Soy making kids 'gay' as further example of logical failure and ideologically driven reporting from WND. Mcas 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed this section, as I don't think it an appropriate addition to the article. It is not an example of a controversy, especially as the article is new and has gone largely unnoticed. It is controversial, but so are a hundred articles WND has written - we have highlighted four big cases. Adding more, especially of this level, is unnecessary and just makes the article longer, but not more enlightening. Kc8ukw 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Apparently the soy article generated more interest than I thought it would: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53425 . Kc8ukw 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
"WorldNetDaily claims to be "the largest independent, full-service newssite in the world."[7]."
Link goes to a 2004 WND article, (not a RS V secondary source) dead Alexa links and claims from Farrah himself. If it was a valid claim in 2004, it no longer is, as asserted. WND also is not as popular as several 'liberal' sites, and this might be important to include. [2] More claims in need of attention coming! - F.A.A.F.A. 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
So perhaps that could be changed to, "In 2004, WND claimed..." Otherwise I think it is fine. WND is making the claim, not Wikipedia. We're just reporting it. Kc8ukw 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
I've removed two sections on controversial articles for the following reasons:
1. They were written with definite POV.
2. They make sweeping generalizations, and...
3. They were written entirely with ConWebWatch as a source, and as this website seems to be the work of one man, I don't believe it meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements.
4. As I've said before, I think we are giving undue weight to criticism on WND, in violation of the NPOV policy, since hundreds of thousands of people use the site everyday without complaint. I do, however, recognize that controversies are more newsworthy here than daily stories, so I think the remaining four sections are important and will try to make them as well written as possible.
Kc8ukw
04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Those sections have been readded, so I now list the four points above as reasons they should be removed. Please comment. Kc8ukw 05:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
For reference, the sections involved are:
Kc8ukw
05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
As there has been no comment or objection after nearly 4 days, I am again removing the sections. Kc8ukw 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)