![]() | 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 |
I included a link to Snopes article about how they cited a satirical article on the Onion about Harry Potter witchcraft. -- 78.16.146.144 ( talk) 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the link, http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.asp, it was removed because it was added to the article without any actual text. amRadioHed ( talk) 06:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
From what I can figure out, in the middle of '06, Newsmax's lawyers threatened to sue Wikipedia over the article on them. Too much truth (IMHO). In response, Wiki's lawyer, User:BradPatrick, posted a sample article reading like an PR Release for Newsmax. (probably written by Newsmax and mandated by them to avoid a lawsuit) Even this article included ConWebWatch, and the very fact that the Wikipedia 'office' posted a protected 'alternate' article with the ConWebWatch link included renders this source as RS + V. I look forward to documenting WND and Joe Farah's central roles in propogating and spreading the debunked 'Clinton Body Count' and 'Vince Foster Murder' Conspiracy Theories.
Please see Talk:NewsMax_Media/Newstuff and Talk:NewsMax_Media#Office_action - Cheers - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
WND aslo reported someone being shot on Flight 93 i post some other problems with their reporting here...
http://911review.org/brad.com/sept11_cell-phones/illinois_flight-93.html
including a post saying a cell phone call from flight 93 was recieved in Illinois by 911 emergency operators.
This could not be true since a cell phone call would go to the local police (in Pa), even if cell phone call were possible at 35,000ft.
engineer says cell phones not possible from 35,000 ft Sept 11
Another problem was the report of someone being shot on Flight 93 to cover themselves (apparently) they posted followup articles the list of articles is here...
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26626 Hijacker shot passenger on Flight 11: FAA memo]
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26641 WorldNetDaily: FAA covering up 9-11 gun, whistleblower agent says]
[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26637 WorldNetDaily: Did FAA get Flight 11 gun story from FBI?]
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26732 FAA official claims gun memo not draft]
other posts i find at least contraversial are... [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 WorldNetDaily: Saddam's WMD have been found]
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52018 Al-Qaida warns Muslims: Time to get out of U.S.]
since i am not comfortable posting changes in this Wiki, if someone wants, they can post this on the WND page
Brad
I've removed most of the sections about articles that deal with ConWebWatch for two reasons 1) despite the earlier incident with NewsMax, I am not convinced that ConWebWatch is in general a reliable source. 2) If something is only discussed by ConWebWatch I am not convinced that it is necessarily notable enough to be worth including here. JoshuaZ 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You have to separate the op/ed columns from the news items. They are two different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.214.145 ( talk) 17:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
WorldNetDaily is described as "conservative" several times. While much effort has gone into eliminating the kind of POV that might suggest bias against that Website, I wonder whether such a lukewarm term is completely accurate. After all, "conservative" can describe The Wall Street Journal and The Economist--neither of which have taken such extreme positions as WorldNetDaily has. Surely an unbiased distinction, made objectively on the basis of the publications' political positions, can be made. I'm not sure which term might serve to make such an unbiased distinction, but "conservative" doesn't ... quite ... seem strong enough. The reader may be deprived of the full picture. Rangergordon ( talk) 10:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Haven't gone over this too thoroughly but the article seems rather biased. For example, calling them "far right?" I mean, come on - that's about as POV as you get. That is generally a derogatory term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.245.174 ( talk) 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
About half of this article is about WND's controversial articles. This seems to be a disproportionately large section of the article. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yaf recently removed the cited "far right" [2]. The linked reliable source is an article in the Nashville Times headlined "Far-right Web site settles case stemming from Gore 2000 campaign". Yaf, please explain your edit, it seems to ignore the obvious sourced 'far right' description. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 15:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Why then did you just revert [5] my book cite? Your edit summary is misleading and offers no explanation. I have provided three solid WP:V sources of 'far right'. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yaf reverted again [6], with the edit summary "READ THE DAMN SOURCES. THEY SAY conservative NOT FAR RIGHT!!!!!" Pardon me, the book source says "so far to the right as to tend towards outer space", the Nashville Post says "Far-right Web site..." and the New York Observer says "On the far-right Web site WorldNetDaily...". So, Yafs edit summary "THEY SAY conservative NOT FAR RIGHT" appears flatly wrong. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 16:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yaf, two questions about your recent cite [7]: 1) Is www.crosstabs.org a WP:V reliable source? 2)Where in that cite to you see the words "far left"? All I see is one user comment from an anonymous reader using a pseudonym. Does that meet WP:V standards for you? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
JCDenton2052 has added Category:Propaganda organisations to this article three times now, without comment regarding any basis for this. I am posting this to try to reach resolution on this subject. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion. As a neutral third party, I would suggest that having a newspaper describe a website as "far right" does not necessarily mean that the website is "far right". Newspapers (and books, and televised news broadcasts, etc.) are known for adding editorial slants to stories. Although the inclusion of "far right" does not necessarily reflect a POV addition by the editor, it does constitute the addition of POV from a third-party source.
Because "far right" is often used as a pejorative term and the definition is subjective, I recommend not stating it as a fact in the article. I belive that a reasonable solution would be to rewrite the lead as follows:
"WorldNetDaily, also known as WND, is a conservative [1][2] web site and online news site, founded in 1997. It is currently in the top 90 news sites as listed at Alexa.[3] It has been described by some writers as 'far right' in its political leanings."
Sources would, of course, be needed for the final sentence, but I think it would get everyone's point across: (1) it has been described as far right, and (2) stating as a fact that it is far right violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The sources provided prove only that it has been described as far right, not that it actually is. I hope this helps. Best wishes to all, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I think that both Yaf and I agree that the dispute is resolved, and the page protection can be lifted so that the 3rd party compromise identified above can be implemented.
SaltyBoatr (
talk)
17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
By whom and by what measure? Who are the "some writers" and why should their opinion matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.104.164 ( talk) 10:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The list of controversies is misleading and biased. One segment on Anglo-Saxon self-hatred is a commentary by an invited writer and how degree of controversy of this op/ed piece is entirely subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.214.145 ( talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Previously, I was informed that op-ed pieces are not RS and cannot be cited on Wikipedia. On this page I learn op-ed pieces are RS as long as they criticize conservatives or conservative publications like WorldNetDaily. This article calls the website "unreliable" and links to this. [8] Not only is this an op-ed piece, it does not use the term unreliable. The same claim of unreliability also links to a critical op-ed piece by Media Matters which criticizes CBS News for publishing the same report as WND. Interestingly, Wikipedia editors critical of WND do not consider CBS News unreliable. [9] This article seriously defames WorldNetDaily. I would not be surprised if the website takes legal action against Wikipedia for allowing this. RonCram ( talk) 17:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
WND is not a proper Christian website. No true Christian taunts others to vote their way. No true Christian taunts others to pray for leaders to fail.
Chrisitans DO NOT pray for leaders to fail, Christians do not harp that you ARE NOT Christian just because you support abortion. It is a radical anti christian site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneral28 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That's surprising. 130.86.14.23 ( talk) 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The controversies on this article are a POV violation and they are sourced to a political website conwebwatch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.66.94 ( talk) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason at all to think this is a reliable source? -- Avi ( talk) 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(Note to future readers: the following comment is based on how the article looked here.)
I know the WND article tends to attract all kinds of editors (mostly the site's conservative fans and liberal detractors), but it's rather obvious this article's content is lopsided. Adding a long list of "controversies/criticisms" is popular with some editors who have an axe to grind, but we all need to remember WP:NPOV is policy (I'm specifically referring to WP:UNDUE and WP:STRUCTURE). I'm not saying we should remove the controversies already mentioned (as long as they cite neutral, third-party sources - see below), but starting a new section for each incident seems unnecessary. Combining the criticism sections would improve the table of contents' appearance, not to mention the overall layout of the page. Unless someone objects, I'll combine the sections in the next day or so.
The article cites the WND website 35 times. WP:SELFPUB states that self-published sources can be used as long as the article isn't primarily based on them. Does anyone else think 35 is a bit much? A related issue is the use of Media Matters for America and ConWebWatch as sources 9 times (I'll let others discuss whether or not The Nation can be considered neutral). The two organizations are partisan advocacy groups/media watchdogs, so I can't see them being considered neutral, reliable sources when discussing WND (ex: read the "About" section on ConWebWatch.com, especially the "Focus" section). The Media Matters for America article also contains a large number of self-published sources, but only 3 that would be described as conservative (Fox News). I wonder what would happen if an editor tried to cite WND on the MMA article? ( answer) If someone can assist me with replacing the MMA and CWW sources (unless the reference is being used as an example in the WND article) with neutral, third-party sources, I'd appreciate it.
I noticed the article was recently tagged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views. WND might fall under their project scope, but I don't know since their project name and description is rather vague. But after reading this, I'm not sure how it's related.
In case someone asks, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm going to post similar messages on a few other conservative and liberal media articles. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed this unsourced section. Can the most current and notable writers be mentioned her with sources? I'll be honest that I have never visited this site{actually visited today to check reference lefy on recent edit summary) so I not sure how it operates as far as its staff/writers. Anyways, Tom 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTc
Any evidence that WND promotes separatism? I reverted such labeling of WND. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It's an invalid source, they're not a news agency and they exclusively criticize "conservatives". WND has plenty of Libertarians running around its pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.214.145 ( talk) 17:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Much of the research against WND goes straight to the original articles themselves, except of course in cases where Farah performs an intentional hit-and-run and scrub-job. CWW and MMfA are valid sources in this matter. Nomen Redactis ( talk) 17:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind that WorldNetDaily operates under two Internet domains, worldnetdaily.com and wnd.com. If you look at the Quantcast charts for both domains, you see a sharp transition in worldnetdaily.com from millions to essentially zero, where for wnd.com you see much the opposite. Whatever the underlying mechanism is for this transition, the 11,000 visitor number in the WP article is not even on the right planet. I'll fix it to say "33 million in September" I also changed WorldNetDaily.com to WND.com preceding the Quantcast number to be correct about where the number is coming from (Quantcast number for wnd.com). Kevin ( talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
WND was not founded as a for profit subsidiary of the Western Journalism Center. The link provided to substantiate this claim makes no mention of this, and Farah himself has denied it. So, I removed it from the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.61.46.16 ( talk) 16:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It should give information about the subject of the encyclopedia entry. This may very well include what makes the person or entity noteworthy, including accomplishments and mis-steps and controversy.
However, a Wikipedia article that ONLY lists criticisms of World Net Daily cannot be a serious encyclopedia article.
Although most Wikipedia participants operate it as a left-wing blog and propaganda tool for the far Laft, it is not supposed to be that way.
An encyclopedia should cover the whole picture of the subject of the entry, not ONLY attack.
Unless this article, like others, INFORMS the reader of the basic facts and the "good" and "bad" issues across the board, then it becomes nothing but a hit piece and turns Wikipedia into just a Left-Wing propaganda blog.
Step back and think about this: How can you have a serious encyclopedia article that consists ONLY of listing "CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLES?"
Would any other newspaper or magazine be described only in terms of its "CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLES?"
Listing only perceived negatives is not a proper encyclopedia article.
206.48.0.60 ( talk) Jon Moseley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.48.0.60 ( talk) 15:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted "Litvinenko and terrorism conspiracy" from the article as the edit misrepresents WND as the source of the "controversy", the nature of the source cited as a news "article" as opposed to "commentary" and the source content itself. What might remain after correction is unsourced in identifying WND as a subject of media "controversy" for their reportage of this "story". -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an active RSN discussion in progress relating to WND's status under WP:RS. Any interested editors are encouraged to contribute. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/about.html
I have removed a few more minor things - minor in the sense that they were unsourced and clearly original research and therefore had no place. Controversial claims require reliable sourcing and the controversies section had little of that. Weakopedia ( talk) 17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither of the sources purportedly evidencing the characterization of WND as "unreliable" ( John Young commentary, Media Matters article) either utilize that descriptive or support such a characterization. Even moreso, the "Media Matters" source, an allegation of WND publishing a "falsehood", is specious in its own rationale for making the allegation. I have deleted those purported sources and applied citation needed to the "unreliable" entry. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I had amended this entry to reflect what is, in my opinion, a misrepresentation of WND's actual reportage, evident in both the actual title of the story, its first paragraph content and subsequent content. That edit was reverted and comments solicited...for which I have started this section.
The content in question is the final paragraph of this section currently containing the following:
The following assertion that...
...mis-represents WND's reportage, evidenced by both the title of the article itself and by the article content, as early as in the first paragraph...
The title clearly demonstrates that WND was not asserting authenticity of the document and that fact was re-substantiated in the first paragraph by use of the qualifying "purports" and the subsequent descriptive, "allegedly issued", cited above.
Nor is the following sentence, apparently the contributing Wiki editor's own paraphrasing, either sourced or attributable to either an assertion or even an allegation made by WND in its reportage...
If anything, the allegation might be "assumed" to have been made by Mr. Taitz both by its initial offering and subsequent use as alleged evidence in support of his court petition for "permission to legally request documents from Kenya".
Nor does the following pass muster...
This is, again, the contributing Wiki editor's own paraphrase. The correct descriptive should be "alleged certified copy". While paraphrasing source content is often warranted, at least present such content as sourceable and accurate.
I propose, again, the following edit...
There's still more to quibble with in this edit, but this will do for a starter. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Mindful that my intent is to argue for further amendment (and perhaps deletion in its entirety), I have inserted the above edit and invite comment from any interested editor. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I am deleting the following entry...
The source does not reference the "Fact Check" document but, instead, an entirely different document about which there is no established relationship to World Net Daily. I have also slightly amended the remaining text which was impacted by the deletion. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 01:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
Conservative Web site WorldNetDaily has settled a legal case with a Tennessee businessman ...
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
An image purporting to represent this certified copy of birth registration is at the article.
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
An image purporting to represent this alleged certified copy of birth registration is at the article.
The "Controversial Aricles" are POV, and the section itself seems to be WP:Original Research. 24.40.158.36 ( talk) 02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I reverted an edit changing "stated" to "claimed". I believe the original edit raised an extremely valid point which should be considered in the choice between the two. IMHO, if there is some demonstrated reason to doubt the validity of an assertion, "claim" would certainly be appropriate. However, without that qualification, the use of "claim" vs "stated" ventures deeply into "weasel word" territory and might easily be construed as POV. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 05:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Further examination of this article content reveals even more misrepresentation of fact. The article currently contains the following...
This is yet another iteration of the same factual error, founded in the same misrepresentation of facts within sourcing that mandated correction elsewhere. Referencing the August 23, 2008, WND article as sourcing for the following text (apparently the contributing Wiki editor's own paraphrase of the story content),...
...the edit misrepresents WND's actual reportage and misidentifies the object of WND's reportage as "Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate" when, in fact, it was a FactCheck.org proffered "image" of the actual "Obama birth certificate" that FactCheck had been permitted to examine on or about Aug 21, 2008 and in which FactCheck's claim of authenticity WND concurred and subsequently qualified in the article itself (but did NOT retract).
Next, compounding (and perhaps capitalizing on) the misidentification of that "Aug 23" object of WND examination, the Wiki editor continues...
...quite obviously implying that subsequent text would qualify, somehow, WND's earlier reportage supporting the authenticity of the FactCheck "image" and its purported content...
The Wiki editor, in his/her own paraphrase, identifies Farah's comments of Dec. 20 as referencing the "...the birth certificate on Obama's campaign website" yet states in the text that Farah's Dec. 20 statement contradicts WND's earlier Aug. 23 reportage on the FactCheck "image" and that WND "forgery experts had not actually concluded it was authentic". This is a blatant misrepresentation of fact, and is evidenced by Farah's actual quote in the Dec. 20 commentary (emphasis mine)...
...and the differentiation and identification of the 2 different images in question reported by FactCheck.org in their earlier article on Aug. 21 (emphasis mine)...
I have made the following edit...including removal of text alleging "contradictory claims made in other WND articles and in Corsi's book" that has remained uncited since July, 2009 and an uncited reference to "numerous liberal websites, politicians and media personalities" "touting" WND's findings (which I would have attempted to restate had any sourcing been provided indicating the original purpose of the text inclusion)...
Whether or not these "facts", now correctly stated, warrant inclusion as "controversial" is another question in an of itself. Comments are solicited. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Someone tried adding this again - here is what their source says.
The source doesn't say these claims are controversial, nor does it say WND got any criticism, nor does it criticise WND so putting that claim in the article is original research, a synthesis of disparate facts that remains unsourced, and I have once again deleted the offending passage. Weakopedia ( talk) 18:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Typical lefties at Wiki added every unsourced negative thing they could find to this article. Why don't you guys go tell THE TRUTH on the NYT article? Left and Jihadi-infested Wiki. How far you've fallen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.184.141 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, March 25, 2009
The article that is used to site the fact that WND is a Conservative news source is an unreliable source, IN THIS CASE . Anyone can say their opinion about something else, and vaguely disguise it as news. For instance, I could probably find blogs, or even articles questioning the liberal or left-winged biased of the New York Times. So should I put that political alignment on that page, and cite it so people would think it is true? I'm not questioning whether or not they are Conservative, I'm questioning the validity of the statement made in the source used to cite this so called "fact". A true source would be a professor of politics, not a journalist's opinion. Until someone can come up with a better source (like I said...a professor) I believe we should take off anything to do with their "political views". Donatrip ( talk) 04:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
According to research done by the Department of Political Science, UCLA, The New York Times "received a score far left of center." in it's political position. [10] So the question then becomes, do we accept the opinion of far left liberals on who is conservative, and vice versa, meaning using hard conservative sources to determine who is liberal? Still the NYT is somewhat of a special case since it has a big reputation in the hard news business. But it is true that there should be no double standard if there is a tag here saying conservative as a fact, then a tag should be considered at the NYT saying liberal as a fact. Hobartimus ( talk) 09:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Obviously World Net Daily is a conservative news source with a very, very strong ideological bent, and that's not a problematic statement. If the sourcing (which I have not examined) is not acceptable, find a more reliable source. I won't get too involved in discussion here because there seems to be a determined attempt to falsely portray World Net Daily as in some way related to the mainstream. -- TS 03:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment Donald, Jake, chill down, i see what your saying, Please stop jumping into other articles to make a point. Your NYT edit has been reverted and frankly there is more to that than this, lets work on dialogue here and not righteous anger. I am still confused, what is the RFC over whether the WND is conservative? I reccomend picking your battles here as anyone can define it as such. its Really almost WP:BLUE, i agree you bring up a wider issue on Wiki about its own liberal bias, which is shifting a bit. But coming in irate does not help things; its makes you look like a dumb redneck or teabagger. I say this becuase i sympathize with you position here to point not becuase i am trying insult you Weaponbb7 ( talk) 03:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments are solicited as to the inclusion of the following text...
JakeInJoisey ( talk) 21:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The source doesn't show WND claiming 8 million visitors a month, it says they claimed as of June 2000 to have a total readership of 250,000. The second source is an estimate, and it estimates WND stats at around 15,000 visitors a month from America. That is a long way from 1 million people a day, so unless I am missing something the entire paragraph makes no sense. I've moved it here for further consideration and sourcing. Weakopedia ( talk) 15:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
In the recent editing, text was deleted stating that WND had been described as "far right". While the Corsi cite was inappropriate to support that assertion, it doesn't mean the text itself was inappropriate, only that it was now unsupported. I have re-inserted/re-worded the text with a CN tag and moved it to the "Description" section. As I believe I have seen several descriptives of this type in reputable publications, supporting cites shouldn't be too difficult to find. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 12:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies with the person adding the information. It also is upon us to add only what is verifiable. It may be that WND have a position on abortion, but we don't know that any position they take is worth mentioning here without that appearing in a secondary source. Adding links to WND pieces about abortion is not enough to show that the opinions being expressed are notable.
The source provided does not associate WND with a birther movement, it says that Farah is, which is a big difference. Find a source to say that WND are associated with the birther movement and then include it, or add the information to the article on Farah.
Finally the 'far-right' thing may be citable, but until it has a citation the proper thing to do is move it to the talkpage of the article to await sourcing, which I am doing now. Weakopedia ( talk) 23:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure just where to begin addressing the WP:OR problems with this edit. I have invited User:24.215.150.119 to comment here. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 06:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I don't think that having a 'political slant' makes them a non-RS. Most newspapers and media stations are described as 'left leaning' or 'traditionally supportive of party x' or 'liberal' or whatever, but we still use them. I don't think that Mother Jones is generally thought of as innacurate or false in it's reporting, so I think we can use Mother Jones but that we should attribute anything we use by them to them. Like for example we could say 'according to the liberal news magazine MJ' or something like that. A political slant doesn't mean we can't use it, it just means we have to be a bit more careful!
Jake has made a good point tho - what is left after the trimming may be verifiable, but it doesn't fit well where it is. The information is probably better incorporated into the bit about Obama directly above it, if it stays. Like Jake says, MJ may be a reliable source but we should be careful of using them as our only source for any controversial claims, and make sure we have other sources to back them up and provide the notability we need for inclusion on Wikipedia. Weakopedia ( talk) 07:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Are the neutrality and accuracy tags on the criticism section still warranted? Weakopedia ( talk) 11:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
After having viewed a source ( You Tube: video time=1:19/2:24) for Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person" reaction to Joseph Farah's commentary of Dec 20, 2008 [[http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=84065]], it is clear that Olbermann, himself, was confused as to the document to which Farah had referred (the "Obama Website" graphic, NOT the "FactCheck.org" graphic) in his (Farah's) commentary (which I explained in some detail above). It also appears that Farah, himself, may not have recognized Olbermann's confusion in constructing his (Farah's) rebuttal to Olbermann's "Worst Person" comments.
For the record, here is a transcript I made of Olbermann's comments which I believe to be an accurate presentation...
But our winner, Joseph Farah, the proprietor of WorldNetDaily. He is now denying that his lunatic-fringe, right-wing website verified the president-elect's birth certificate and, in so doing, destroyed an industry of conspiracy theorists who believe that Obama is from Kenya or, possibly, the moon. He says, quote "Nothing could be further from the truth". He adds "He did offer up to forgery experts a facsimile of a partial birth certificate. None of them could report conclusively that the electronic image was authentic or that it was a forgery.
Yeah (ed. in sarcastic tone). Joseph Farah's WorlNetDaily on August 23rd of last year posted and copyrighted this article by its guy, Drew Zahn. Quote (ed. and displayed in a graphic): "A separate investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic." [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214 ed. link
Oops. That would make Mr. Farah of WorldNetDaily not just a bald-faced liar but one whose claim is easily disproved by his own website. Well, why do you think they call it the lunatic fringe.
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, today's "worst person in the world".
This presents somewhat of an interesting conundrum in terms of WP:V and WP:UNDUE. While Olbermann's comments might be citable under WP:V, his now obvious error (and subsequent reports of those error-based comments) was neither challenged by Farah nor corrected (that I can find) anywhere else. Perhaps that may be attributed to a relative lack of notability for Olbermann's "Worst Person" comments in the first place.
IMHO, while legitimate arguments might be (and have been) raised as to Olbermann's "stand-alone" RS status under WP:UNDUE, this error-based commentary is even more troubling and I don't believe it rises to satisfy WP:V and WP:UNDUE criteria and its inclusion constitutes WP:POV.
Comments? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
None of them could report conclusively that the electronic image was authentic or that it was a forgery.
The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama's actual certification of live birth and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.
Clearly, in context, it the WND writer is indicating they came to the same conclusions as Factcheck.org. The fault of the confusions of Farah(and the rest of those who sympathize with his views) is not to those who point out the contradictions, but lies on those who seem to believe that having an authentic birth certificate from the State of Hawaii does not prove with absolute certainty that Barack Obama was born there. If I had a Polaroid picture of you and scanned it into a computer, there would be no difference between the picture and the scan, if authenticated. And it's just illogical to claim otherwise. Trying to claim that "Well, I said the scanned image was authentic, but I didn't say the actual image was authentic or proved it was you", is just bizarre. Dave Dial ( talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.
This sounds like unnecessary nitpicking. In August the website conceded that the birth certificate was authentic, then in December it said an image of it could not be authenticated. If the original is authentic, then casting doubt on a copy presented by Obama's own campaign, which would have no conceivable reason to produce a forgery, is very dishonest and represents a rather nasty bit of back-pedalling. Tasty monster (= TS ) 04:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Jake, you're engaging in original research which is leading you to declare that everybody (including Farah) has his facts wrong except you.
That aside, I find it a little extraordinary that we're citing a small section, chiefly intended for entertainment though sometimes it is used for more serious purposes, of Olbermann's television show.
Few sources take the website seriously and even this piece would not have been broadcast if the producers of Olbermann's show hadn't found it amusing.
We should be wary of making articles on fringe websites just a catalog of derision. The refusal by Clear Channel, CBS and Lamar to accept the website's birther ads should make the cut (doesn't seem to be there now) but I'd be far more wary of chronicling this knockabout stuff. I'm not convinced that this particular material belongs here. Olbermann's show is well researched and wittily presented, but his "Worst Person in the World" is usually (and was here) one of the funny bits near the end. Tasty monster (= TS ) 14:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be inappropriate for us to discuss Olbermann's entertaining rant without first considering whether it's relevant to anything much because birthers are not Keith Olbermann's target audience. It was aimed at ridiculing an easy target, and I think your quibbling over detail is missing the point that it is of little weight.
As I remarked above, of more moment to the website is the refusal of at least three major billboard advertisers to accept the website's Obama-baiting ads, and we don't seem to be covering that at present. Keith Olbermann can make fun of Farah but it's unlikely to mean much, whereas the birther-weariness of advertising space agencies is a net cost to Farah. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I've restored text that was removed on the premise that it was sourced from the "unreliable" PolitiFact. In fact that service is a fact-checking operation run by the St. Petersburg Times and has won a Pulitzer for its work. -- TS 22:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I see the right wing lackeys are out to defend WND, even on the creditation issue. How many lies do you need to be caught in, how many libel/defamation lawsuits do you have to lose before other journalists refuse to sit in the same room with you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.45.35 ( talk) 08:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
These are two different concepts (but related), and two different articles:
Right-wingers aren't automatically conservative, and conservatives aren't automatically right wingers, but both phrases are used to describe this site's content and nature.
We need the lead to accurately reflect how the world and reliable sources view this website for our readers. Thoughts? rootology ( C)( T) 15:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have moved it to the description section WorldNetDaily#Description where it belongs. I do not see any political tagging in the lede in the articles on The New York Times or Independent Media Center, for example. Why should this be different? The description is accurate and well-sourced, but putting it in the lead, unlike other publications, may be a WP:POV violation of Poisoning the well. -- Avi ( talk) 05:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As of 9/16/09 the first sentence says republican, far right, or conservative. Regardless of where WND leans equating these three different ideas is inaccurate. Republican is center right (according to wikipedia) and saying that is the same thing as far right doesn't make sense. 4:17 PST 9/16/09 (rocke4444)
At least the first sentence of the site has changed from stating WND is a "news source" to " American online web site, but American is questionable since since Farah often describes himself as an Arab-American and has many have noted WND does not necessarily represent views of Americans or the conservative party. On the contrary, many conservatives (ie REPUBLICANS) are actively boycotting World Net Daily over the "birther" idiocy that that tabloid pushes: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/01/conservative-boycott-of-right-wing-worldnetdaily-over-embarrass/ Even WND itself acknowledges this fact. There are other countless other web articles to support the position that WND is NOT CONSERVATIVE. The best way to describe WND is a radical right wing propaganda tabloid. When websites like stormfront.org (a neo-nazi organization) and white supremacy sites (the KKK for example) frequently cite WND articles as valid news sources (even though most would recognize that they are not) it's insulting and disturbing for Wikipedia to infer that WND views are equated with those of the GOP or Americans in general for that matter. http://digg.com/world_news/Google_StormFront_WorldNetDaily_1_450_hits 76.187.246.201 ( talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)AgiosTheseus
This website is a radical extreme website that incites hatred and spreads gossip for a politcal agenda, that is not conservative but radical. There is not enough criticism about how they have very often twisted words and "reported" statements as facts when they were not. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/whats-worldnetdaily-hidin_b_224496.html
sidebar comment: I'm somewhat bemused by the apparently unintentionally ironic lead-in of the huffpost article you point to above: "As the saying goes: When you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing." Actually, I'm more amused than bemused. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed this section
Without a source, other than WND, to support this it is original research. There was a source on the article that discussed it but has since been removed [11] so maybe that can be added to make some sense of it all but until then it is inappropriate - if it were not then we could add every article that WND ever wrote. Weakopedia ( talk) 08:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
References
Per Publisher's Weekly - WND Books is no longer in a partnership w/a religious publisher Thomas Nelson. In fact, it has been several years since they went their separate ways, and a look at the WND Books listings clearly shows that there are few Christian religious and family values titles. Therefore the characterization by The Guardian the WND Books is "a niche producer of rightwing conspiracy theories, religious books and 'family values' tracts", is mainly inaccurate, so I have removed it. KeptSouth ( talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
"ConWebWatch" is cited as a source several times in this article despite its being "self-published". As noted above, "self-published" sources are not WP:RS for "...claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)". ConWebWatch, therefore, does not satisfy the WP:RS requirement as an RS for this article and all citations should be removed with subsequent consideration given to WP:V for formerly supported content. Comments? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at this section for POV issues? The preponderance of quotes are from the WND staff member and the amount of rather vitriolic quotation seems to slant the section in a POV direction. 76.218.68.67 ( talk) 07:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I really hesitate to dive into this talk page, but I'm going to anyway. This sentence is the focus of an edit war. It's claimed to be sourced. What is it sourced to? The source at the end of the paragraph doesn't support it. I think it's probably true, but I don't see a source for it. Is there something going on that I don't understand?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 00:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone should update that list to include Judith Reisman's article comparing GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) and participants in the Day of Silence to Nazis and the Hitler Youth ASAP. 207.75.37.104 ( talk) 23:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again the World Net Daily is complaining of being denied press access. Just like at the Copenhagen council on Global Warming it was denied a press credential; and now we see a complaint that it is being denied Washington D.C. access by the White House Press Corps, with an accusation that Obama is using the Press Corps to restrict opposing viewpoints: Under the President George W. Bush administration the opposing viewpoints were noxious and notorious--openly offensive in slander against Republicans--for the man accused of being a drunk, while President Barack Obama would wear a "party naked" t-shirt at a videotaped conference (whole different points of view are being seen in identity politics, that in the reverses show a lot of hypocrisy). Barack Obama is notorious for using exclusive access for paying clients, as he is a lawyer trained family, where even during the President Election he would personally tell uninvited guests to go-away; but as a public figure from the White House the Obama and the Democrats he coat-tailed (they ride his coat-tails behind him) into the President Halls of Empowerment is having problems restricting press access, as he has gave orders to the press--in the past--to not record his public speeches, that is a gag order, like seen in courts of law, that is a violation of the freedom of press, because legal authorities have no right to censor the press for their personal purposes. World Net Daily, that covers many topics, is seeing their complaints at restricted access: I have read World Net Daily, it is not the Sun of London; they actually are critical of the problems in government and other things that show abuse, inconsistent, power-ploys, and the usual identity politics of government showing the hypocrisy in the face of our real world--as the cycle of life continues its clown show of arrogance, vanity, narcissism, weakness, speculations, imaginations, and futility. There is a wikipedia complaint that the left is censoring World Net Daily, and like a moth to flame they show up at their eye-sore (they surround themselves with what they approve and banish the eye-sore), never seen different at that behavior (even the Christian churches online get the witches, homosexuals, lesbians, pagans, atheist, and every ball-buster to show up with their personal stream of insanity demanding obedience from Jesus Christ to their personal "Sid and Marty Krofft" world of children viewpoints from the "Land of the Lost," and World Net Daily faces the same problem). The complaint: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139657 Have a nice day.
What does this bizarre rant have to do with the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.162.217 ( talk) 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
In the "Controversies" section, there is section titled "Libel Lawsuit". Reading through it, the culmination of the suit was a jointly drafted statement that WND misquoted sources. Why is this entire section here? It falls way below the expected level of WP:Notability for Wikipedia. I'm sure if I checked other web or print news sources, there would be NO mentions of any suits against the company while in fact these types of suits are extremely common and happen all the time so why is this one case printed here (especially since it ended up in a non-verdict). How many times has the New York Times, Chicago Tribune or Newsweek (or any daily/weekly) been sued for libel or mis-quoting sources? 100's of times - 1000's? Heck - The Huffington Post is CONSTANTLY cited for printing content that people find libalous (ref recent Catholic-bashing article). The only reason I see for this being here is someone has a non-NPOV axe to grind. However, I'm happy to be proven wrong before I delete the entire section. Ckruschke ( talk) 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
FYI. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WorldNetDaily -- Shuki ( talk) 07:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Better link for that is WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38#World_Net_Daily -- Larrybob ( talk) 19:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Guys, half this article is cited to WND. That's a WP:PRIMARY problem, but it's also specifically violative of WP:RSN's position that WND is only a reliable source for its opinions, not for facts. I'm giving notice that I intend to remove all factual assertions cited to WND that aren't assertions as to WND's opinions. 24.177.120.138 ( talk) 04:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems pretty black and white to me. 24.177.120.138 ( talk) 02:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
Actually, the previous discussions seems to indicate that WND is not an open and shut case. I see a rough consensus for saying that it is unreliable (but with significant disagreement)...and a lot of agreement that no source is always either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable.
Consensus is clear that WND is not a reliable source for factual claims, but of course can be used as a reliable source for its own, or its writers' opinion. Some of these edits are a grey area when it concerns factual claims about WND by WND. In those cases, it would be acceptable as long as it adheres to the self-publish guidelines of RS which are:
Given that, using WND as a source in an article about WND would definitely be on a case-by-case basis. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe it is enough to say "writing for The Guardian" rather than "writing for the liberal The Guardian". The label "liberal" is a mere distraction to me. The Guardian is well-known enough. -- Edcolins ( talk) 19:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
And I agree with Loonymonkey's edit summary here. Indeed, it's a very good point. -- Edcolins ( talk) 19:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Just had an edit conflict. Won't repeat what I said as Dave has said it better. In any case, having a broad assortment of material doesn't stop them from being a niche producer, they don't contradict. Dougweller ( talk) 16:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The lead claim is that the website has promoted a number of conspiracy theories, but the content of the and the sources used only has one (the Barack Obama birther stuff).
Should that be changed?
Marquis de Faux ( talk) 22:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I find it quite amusing that conservative news sources are labelled conservative, but those with a CLEAR """liberal""" bias, like NYT for instance, are 'just a newspaper'.
REALLY makes you think!
Furthermore, the very first reference is hilariously bad--is your source that WND is conservative a quote by a politico writer referring to it as the 'conservative website WND'? That hardly holds any weight.
-- Crisbrm ( talk) 19:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
and more
etc. etc.
Please stop removing text based on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
A suggestion above: We can say both as a compromise - "which has been described as conservative [sources] or far-right [sources]". This sounds good to me. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a (I think slight) problem with this edit. I don't think we can say in Wikipedia voice that it is "a conservative website", only that "it has been described as conservative". The distinction is important, especially since I'm pretty sure there's lots of conservatives out there who would wish not to be associated with the kind of fringe material WND publishes. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I am new to editing, and genuinely do not understand why WND is not considered reliable. That is not my way of saying I think it is, I am just looking for clarification on why this site specifically is not considered reliable, perhaps in bullet points. I also don't fully understand how the talk pages work so sorry if this is not the proper use of it or I have missed something.
I guess my other question is who is the 'decider' of things like these. Is there a vote or an editor with final say? How does consensus form? What if there are many arguments on the talk page about why x site is unreliable, but I don't find them to be compelling arguments? How is it decided officially that an edit can be removed from an article due to an unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proustfala ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Besides the deleted Chicago Tribune source, I found [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not a consumer of WND.com, but in reading this Wikipedia article, I have to agree with so many others above who point out the obvious lack of disinterest by the editors. Like many articles in Wikipedia on "fringe" and ""far right" news sites, this one poisons the well in the first sentence. Why is that unreliable lefty news sources (e.g. Media Matters) are always initially described as "progressive" with an immediate reference to the site's mission statement? Never are they called "far left" in the lead sentence (although they inarguably are).
Well, here is WND's mission statement -- how about including it in the opening paragraph:
“WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power. We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.” [1]
And while the bulk of this article discusses WND's "Controversies" at great length, it fails to mention a single one of the news stories the site has broken over the years. Where is the paragraph on that? Christian B Martin ( talk) 21:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
"We rarely include mission statements." Uh, hello ... Doug? Any one home? My comment included a link for the Wikipedia article on Media Matters and to that article's inclusion of that entity's "virtually always self-serving" mission statement in the lead sentence. And there are other examples of course. Christian B Martin ( talk) 02:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"So what? That's a different article." Huh? That was the whole point of my comment nincompoop -- that Wikipedia articles on news sources are inequitable based on the ideological bias of the news site. And so an example of this was given. As I must boringly repeat, you clearly do not read attentively and should certainly steer clear of editing. (By the way, who is this "We" you pompously speak of in "We rarely include mission statements"). As for the "sources" you seek from me, if you really care, they are certainly out there for YOU to find. Boring! Christian B Martin ( talk) 02:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
References
Not sure what they add -- if WorldNetDaily is allowed to be an acceptable source for non-exceptional non-promotional claims about itself (in the usual way), then the tags should be removed. If it isn't, then this article would seem to need radical surgery (not just tagging)... AnonMoos ( talk) 06:14, 22 March 2020 (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 |
I included a link to Snopes article about how they cited a satirical article on the Onion about Harry Potter witchcraft. -- 78.16.146.144 ( talk) 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
This is the link, http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.asp, it was removed because it was added to the article without any actual text. amRadioHed ( talk) 06:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
From what I can figure out, in the middle of '06, Newsmax's lawyers threatened to sue Wikipedia over the article on them. Too much truth (IMHO). In response, Wiki's lawyer, User:BradPatrick, posted a sample article reading like an PR Release for Newsmax. (probably written by Newsmax and mandated by them to avoid a lawsuit) Even this article included ConWebWatch, and the very fact that the Wikipedia 'office' posted a protected 'alternate' article with the ConWebWatch link included renders this source as RS + V. I look forward to documenting WND and Joe Farah's central roles in propogating and spreading the debunked 'Clinton Body Count' and 'Vince Foster Murder' Conspiracy Theories.
Please see Talk:NewsMax_Media/Newstuff and Talk:NewsMax_Media#Office_action - Cheers - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
WND aslo reported someone being shot on Flight 93 i post some other problems with their reporting here...
http://911review.org/brad.com/sept11_cell-phones/illinois_flight-93.html
including a post saying a cell phone call from flight 93 was recieved in Illinois by 911 emergency operators.
This could not be true since a cell phone call would go to the local police (in Pa), even if cell phone call were possible at 35,000ft.
engineer says cell phones not possible from 35,000 ft Sept 11
Another problem was the report of someone being shot on Flight 93 to cover themselves (apparently) they posted followup articles the list of articles is here...
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26626 Hijacker shot passenger on Flight 11: FAA memo]
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26641 WorldNetDaily: FAA covering up 9-11 gun, whistleblower agent says]
[http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26637 WorldNetDaily: Did FAA get Flight 11 gun story from FBI?]
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26732 FAA official claims gun memo not draft]
other posts i find at least contraversial are... [http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38213 WorldNetDaily: Saddam's WMD have been found]
[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52018 Al-Qaida warns Muslims: Time to get out of U.S.]
since i am not comfortable posting changes in this Wiki, if someone wants, they can post this on the WND page
Brad
I've removed most of the sections about articles that deal with ConWebWatch for two reasons 1) despite the earlier incident with NewsMax, I am not convinced that ConWebWatch is in general a reliable source. 2) If something is only discussed by ConWebWatch I am not convinced that it is necessarily notable enough to be worth including here. JoshuaZ 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
You have to separate the op/ed columns from the news items. They are two different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.214.145 ( talk) 17:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
WorldNetDaily is described as "conservative" several times. While much effort has gone into eliminating the kind of POV that might suggest bias against that Website, I wonder whether such a lukewarm term is completely accurate. After all, "conservative" can describe The Wall Street Journal and The Economist--neither of which have taken such extreme positions as WorldNetDaily has. Surely an unbiased distinction, made objectively on the basis of the publications' political positions, can be made. I'm not sure which term might serve to make such an unbiased distinction, but "conservative" doesn't ... quite ... seem strong enough. The reader may be deprived of the full picture. Rangergordon ( talk) 10:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Haven't gone over this too thoroughly but the article seems rather biased. For example, calling them "far right?" I mean, come on - that's about as POV as you get. That is generally a derogatory term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.245.174 ( talk) 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
About half of this article is about WND's controversial articles. This seems to be a disproportionately large section of the article. JBFrenchhorn ( talk) 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
Yaf recently removed the cited "far right" [2]. The linked reliable source is an article in the Nashville Times headlined "Far-right Web site settles case stemming from Gore 2000 campaign". Yaf, please explain your edit, it seems to ignore the obvious sourced 'far right' description. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 15:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
Why then did you just revert [5] my book cite? Your edit summary is misleading and offers no explanation. I have provided three solid WP:V sources of 'far right'. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yaf reverted again [6], with the edit summary "READ THE DAMN SOURCES. THEY SAY conservative NOT FAR RIGHT!!!!!" Pardon me, the book source says "so far to the right as to tend towards outer space", the Nashville Post says "Far-right Web site..." and the New York Observer says "On the far-right Web site WorldNetDaily...". So, Yafs edit summary "THEY SAY conservative NOT FAR RIGHT" appears flatly wrong. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 16:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Yaf, two questions about your recent cite [7]: 1) Is www.crosstabs.org a WP:V reliable source? 2)Where in that cite to you see the words "far left"? All I see is one user comment from an anonymous reader using a pseudonym. Does that meet WP:V standards for you? Thanks. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
JCDenton2052 has added Category:Propaganda organisations to this article three times now, without comment regarding any basis for this. I am posting this to try to reach resolution on this subject. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I saw this listed at Wikipedia:Third opinion. As a neutral third party, I would suggest that having a newspaper describe a website as "far right" does not necessarily mean that the website is "far right". Newspapers (and books, and televised news broadcasts, etc.) are known for adding editorial slants to stories. Although the inclusion of "far right" does not necessarily reflect a POV addition by the editor, it does constitute the addition of POV from a third-party source.
Because "far right" is often used as a pejorative term and the definition is subjective, I recommend not stating it as a fact in the article. I belive that a reasonable solution would be to rewrite the lead as follows:
"WorldNetDaily, also known as WND, is a conservative [1][2] web site and online news site, founded in 1997. It is currently in the top 90 news sites as listed at Alexa.[3] It has been described by some writers as 'far right' in its political leanings."
Sources would, of course, be needed for the final sentence, but I think it would get everyone's point across: (1) it has been described as far right, and (2) stating as a fact that it is far right violates Wikipedia's neutrality policy. The sources provided prove only that it has been described as far right, not that it actually is. I hope this helps. Best wishes to all, GaryColemanFan ( talk) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
{{
editprotected}}
I think that both Yaf and I agree that the dispute is resolved, and the page protection can be lifted so that the 3rd party compromise identified above can be implemented.
SaltyBoatr (
talk)
17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
By whom and by what measure? Who are the "some writers" and why should their opinion matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.104.164 ( talk) 10:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
The list of controversies is misleading and biased. One segment on Anglo-Saxon self-hatred is a commentary by an invited writer and how degree of controversy of this op/ed piece is entirely subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.214.145 ( talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Previously, I was informed that op-ed pieces are not RS and cannot be cited on Wikipedia. On this page I learn op-ed pieces are RS as long as they criticize conservatives or conservative publications like WorldNetDaily. This article calls the website "unreliable" and links to this. [8] Not only is this an op-ed piece, it does not use the term unreliable. The same claim of unreliability also links to a critical op-ed piece by Media Matters which criticizes CBS News for publishing the same report as WND. Interestingly, Wikipedia editors critical of WND do not consider CBS News unreliable. [9] This article seriously defames WorldNetDaily. I would not be surprised if the website takes legal action against Wikipedia for allowing this. RonCram ( talk) 17:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)
WND is not a proper Christian website. No true Christian taunts others to vote their way. No true Christian taunts others to pray for leaders to fail.
Chrisitans DO NOT pray for leaders to fail, Christians do not harp that you ARE NOT Christian just because you support abortion. It is a radical anti christian site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeneral28 ( talk • contribs) 22:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
That's surprising. 130.86.14.23 ( talk) 05:55, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
The controversies on this article are a POV violation and they are sourced to a political website conwebwatch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.66.94 ( talk) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there any reason at all to think this is a reliable source? -- Avi ( talk) 00:06, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
(Note to future readers: the following comment is based on how the article looked here.)
I know the WND article tends to attract all kinds of editors (mostly the site's conservative fans and liberal detractors), but it's rather obvious this article's content is lopsided. Adding a long list of "controversies/criticisms" is popular with some editors who have an axe to grind, but we all need to remember WP:NPOV is policy (I'm specifically referring to WP:UNDUE and WP:STRUCTURE). I'm not saying we should remove the controversies already mentioned (as long as they cite neutral, third-party sources - see below), but starting a new section for each incident seems unnecessary. Combining the criticism sections would improve the table of contents' appearance, not to mention the overall layout of the page. Unless someone objects, I'll combine the sections in the next day or so.
The article cites the WND website 35 times. WP:SELFPUB states that self-published sources can be used as long as the article isn't primarily based on them. Does anyone else think 35 is a bit much? A related issue is the use of Media Matters for America and ConWebWatch as sources 9 times (I'll let others discuss whether or not The Nation can be considered neutral). The two organizations are partisan advocacy groups/media watchdogs, so I can't see them being considered neutral, reliable sources when discussing WND (ex: read the "About" section on ConWebWatch.com, especially the "Focus" section). The Media Matters for America article also contains a large number of self-published sources, but only 3 that would be described as conservative (Fox News). I wonder what would happen if an editor tried to cite WND on the MMA article? ( answer) If someone can assist me with replacing the MMA and CWW sources (unless the reference is being used as an example in the WND article) with neutral, third-party sources, I'd appreciate it.
I noticed the article was recently tagged with Wikipedia:WikiProject Alternative Views. WND might fall under their project scope, but I don't know since their project name and description is rather vague. But after reading this, I'm not sure how it's related.
In case someone asks, I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm going to post similar messages on a few other conservative and liberal media articles. APK thinks he's ready for his closeup 13:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I removed this unsourced section. Can the most current and notable writers be mentioned her with sources? I'll be honest that I have never visited this site{actually visited today to check reference lefy on recent edit summary) so I not sure how it operates as far as its staff/writers. Anyways, Tom 01:46, 13 March 2009 (UTc
Any evidence that WND promotes separatism? I reverted such labeling of WND. -- Andrewlp1991 ( talk) 05:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
It's an invalid source, they're not a news agency and they exclusively criticize "conservatives". WND has plenty of Libertarians running around its pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.214.145 ( talk) 17:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Much of the research against WND goes straight to the original articles themselves, except of course in cases where Farah performs an intentional hit-and-run and scrub-job. CWW and MMfA are valid sources in this matter. Nomen Redactis ( talk) 17:03, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Keep in mind that WorldNetDaily operates under two Internet domains, worldnetdaily.com and wnd.com. If you look at the Quantcast charts for both domains, you see a sharp transition in worldnetdaily.com from millions to essentially zero, where for wnd.com you see much the opposite. Whatever the underlying mechanism is for this transition, the 11,000 visitor number in the WP article is not even on the right planet. I'll fix it to say "33 million in September" I also changed WorldNetDaily.com to WND.com preceding the Quantcast number to be correct about where the number is coming from (Quantcast number for wnd.com). Kevin ( talk) 23:29, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
WND was not founded as a for profit subsidiary of the Western Journalism Center. The link provided to substantiate this claim makes no mention of this, and Farah himself has denied it. So, I removed it from the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.61.46.16 ( talk) 16:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
This is supposed to be an encyclopedia. It should give information about the subject of the encyclopedia entry. This may very well include what makes the person or entity noteworthy, including accomplishments and mis-steps and controversy.
However, a Wikipedia article that ONLY lists criticisms of World Net Daily cannot be a serious encyclopedia article.
Although most Wikipedia participants operate it as a left-wing blog and propaganda tool for the far Laft, it is not supposed to be that way.
An encyclopedia should cover the whole picture of the subject of the entry, not ONLY attack.
Unless this article, like others, INFORMS the reader of the basic facts and the "good" and "bad" issues across the board, then it becomes nothing but a hit piece and turns Wikipedia into just a Left-Wing propaganda blog.
Step back and think about this: How can you have a serious encyclopedia article that consists ONLY of listing "CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLES?"
Would any other newspaper or magazine be described only in terms of its "CONTROVERSIAL ARTICLES?"
Listing only perceived negatives is not a proper encyclopedia article.
206.48.0.60 ( talk) Jon Moseley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.48.0.60 ( talk) 15:26, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
I have deleted "Litvinenko and terrorism conspiracy" from the article as the edit misrepresents WND as the source of the "controversy", the nature of the source cited as a news "article" as opposed to "commentary" and the source content itself. What might remain after correction is unsourced in identifying WND as a subject of media "controversy" for their reportage of this "story". -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 17:37, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
There is an active RSN discussion in progress relating to WND's status under WP:RS. Any interested editors are encouraged to contribute. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 02:44, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/about.html
I have removed a few more minor things - minor in the sense that they were unsourced and clearly original research and therefore had no place. Controversial claims require reliable sourcing and the controversies section had little of that. Weakopedia ( talk) 17:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
Neither of the sources purportedly evidencing the characterization of WND as "unreliable" ( John Young commentary, Media Matters article) either utilize that descriptive or support such a characterization. Even moreso, the "Media Matters" source, an allegation of WND publishing a "falsehood", is specious in its own rationale for making the allegation. I have deleted those purported sources and applied citation needed to the "unreliable" entry. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:44, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
I had amended this entry to reflect what is, in my opinion, a misrepresentation of WND's actual reportage, evident in both the actual title of the story, its first paragraph content and subsequent content. That edit was reverted and comments solicited...for which I have started this section.
The content in question is the final paragraph of this section currently containing the following:
The following assertion that...
...mis-represents WND's reportage, evidenced by both the title of the article itself and by the article content, as early as in the first paragraph...
The title clearly demonstrates that WND was not asserting authenticity of the document and that fact was re-substantiated in the first paragraph by use of the qualifying "purports" and the subsequent descriptive, "allegedly issued", cited above.
Nor is the following sentence, apparently the contributing Wiki editor's own paraphrasing, either sourced or attributable to either an assertion or even an allegation made by WND in its reportage...
If anything, the allegation might be "assumed" to have been made by Mr. Taitz both by its initial offering and subsequent use as alleged evidence in support of his court petition for "permission to legally request documents from Kenya".
Nor does the following pass muster...
This is, again, the contributing Wiki editor's own paraphrase. The correct descriptive should be "alleged certified copy". While paraphrasing source content is often warranted, at least present such content as sourceable and accurate.
I propose, again, the following edit...
There's still more to quibble with in this edit, but this will do for a starter. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 20:49, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
Mindful that my intent is to argue for further amendment (and perhaps deletion in its entirety), I have inserted the above edit and invite comment from any interested editor. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 19:09, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
I am deleting the following entry...
The source does not reference the "Fact Check" document but, instead, an entirely different document about which there is no established relationship to World Net Daily. I have also slightly amended the remaining text which was impacted by the deletion. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 01:53, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help)
Conservative Web site WorldNetDaily has settled a legal case with a Tennessee businessman ...
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
An image purporting to represent this certified copy of birth registration is at the article.
{{
cite news}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
An image purporting to represent this alleged certified copy of birth registration is at the article.
The "Controversial Aricles" are POV, and the section itself seems to be WP:Original Research. 24.40.158.36 ( talk) 02:45, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
I reverted an edit changing "stated" to "claimed". I believe the original edit raised an extremely valid point which should be considered in the choice between the two. IMHO, if there is some demonstrated reason to doubt the validity of an assertion, "claim" would certainly be appropriate. However, without that qualification, the use of "claim" vs "stated" ventures deeply into "weasel word" territory and might easily be construed as POV. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 05:26, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
Further examination of this article content reveals even more misrepresentation of fact. The article currently contains the following...
This is yet another iteration of the same factual error, founded in the same misrepresentation of facts within sourcing that mandated correction elsewhere. Referencing the August 23, 2008, WND article as sourcing for the following text (apparently the contributing Wiki editor's own paraphrase of the story content),...
...the edit misrepresents WND's actual reportage and misidentifies the object of WND's reportage as "Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate" when, in fact, it was a FactCheck.org proffered "image" of the actual "Obama birth certificate" that FactCheck had been permitted to examine on or about Aug 21, 2008 and in which FactCheck's claim of authenticity WND concurred and subsequently qualified in the article itself (but did NOT retract).
Next, compounding (and perhaps capitalizing on) the misidentification of that "Aug 23" object of WND examination, the Wiki editor continues...
...quite obviously implying that subsequent text would qualify, somehow, WND's earlier reportage supporting the authenticity of the FactCheck "image" and its purported content...
The Wiki editor, in his/her own paraphrase, identifies Farah's comments of Dec. 20 as referencing the "...the birth certificate on Obama's campaign website" yet states in the text that Farah's Dec. 20 statement contradicts WND's earlier Aug. 23 reportage on the FactCheck "image" and that WND "forgery experts had not actually concluded it was authentic". This is a blatant misrepresentation of fact, and is evidenced by Farah's actual quote in the Dec. 20 commentary (emphasis mine)...
...and the differentiation and identification of the 2 different images in question reported by FactCheck.org in their earlier article on Aug. 21 (emphasis mine)...
I have made the following edit...including removal of text alleging "contradictory claims made in other WND articles and in Corsi's book" that has remained uncited since July, 2009 and an uncited reference to "numerous liberal websites, politicians and media personalities" "touting" WND's findings (which I would have attempted to restate had any sourcing been provided indicating the original purpose of the text inclusion)...
Whether or not these "facts", now correctly stated, warrant inclusion as "controversial" is another question in an of itself. Comments are solicited. -- JakeInJoisey ( talk) 02:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
References
Someone tried adding this again - here is what their source says.
The source doesn't say these claims are controversial, nor does it say WND got any criticism, nor does it criticise WND so putting that claim in the article is original research, a synthesis of disparate facts that remains unsourced, and I have once again deleted the offending passage. Weakopedia ( talk) 18:02, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
Typical lefties at Wiki added every unsourced negative thing they could find to this article. Why don't you guys go tell THE TRUTH on the NYT article? Left and Jihadi-infested Wiki. How far you've fallen.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.184.141 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, March 25, 2009
The article that is used to site the fact that WND is a Conservative news source is an unreliable source, IN THIS CASE . Anyone can say their opinion about something else, and vaguely disguise it as news. For instance, I could probably find blogs, or even articles questioning the liberal or left-winged biased of the New York Times. So should I put that political alignment on that page, and cite it so people would think it is true? I'm not questioning whether or not they are Conservative, I'm questioning the validity of the statement made in the source used to cite this so called "fact". A true source would be a professor of politics, not a journalist's opinion. Until someone can come up with a better source (like I said...a professor) I believe we should take off anything to do with their "political views". Donatrip ( talk) 04:26, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
According to research done by the Department of Political Science, UCLA, The New York Times "received a score far left of center." in it's political position. [10] So the question then becomes, do we accept the opinion of far left liberals on who is conservative, and vice versa, meaning using hard conservative sources to determine who is liberal? Still the NYT is somewhat of a special case since it has a big reputation in the hard news business. But it is true that there should be no double standard if there is a tag here saying conservative as a fact, then a tag should be considered at the NYT saying liberal as a fact. Hobartimus ( talk) 09:55, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
Obviously World Net Daily is a conservative news source with a very, very strong ideological bent, and that's not a problematic statement. If the sourcing (which I have not examined) is not acceptable, find a more reliable source. I won't get too involved in discussion here because there seems to be a determined attempt to falsely portray World Net Daily as in some way related to the mainstream. -- TS 03:28, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Comment Donald, Jake, chill down, i see what your saying, Please stop jumping into other articles to make a point. Your NYT edit has been reverted and frankly there is more to that than this, lets work on dialogue here and not righteous anger. I am still confused, what is the RFC over whether the WND is conservative? I reccomend picking your battles here as anyone can define it as such. its Really almost WP:BLUE, i agree you bring up a wider issue on Wiki about its own liberal bias, which is shifting a bit. But coming in irate does not help things; its makes you look like a dumb redneck or teabagger. I say this becuase i sympathize with you position here to point not becuase i am trying insult you Weaponbb7 ( talk) 03:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
Comments are solicited as to the inclusion of the following text...
JakeInJoisey ( talk) 21:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
The source doesn't show WND claiming 8 million visitors a month, it says they claimed as of June 2000 to have a total readership of 250,000. The second source is an estimate, and it estimates WND stats at around 15,000 visitors a month from America. That is a long way from 1 million people a day, so unless I am missing something the entire paragraph makes no sense. I've moved it here for further consideration and sourcing. Weakopedia ( talk) 15:18, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check |url=
value (
help)
In the recent editing, text was deleted stating that WND had been described as "far right". While the Corsi cite was inappropriate to support that assertion, it doesn't mean the text itself was inappropriate, only that it was now unsupported. I have re-inserted/re-worded the text with a CN tag and moved it to the "Description" section. As I believe I have seen several descriptives of this type in reputable publications, supporting cites shouldn't be too difficult to find. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 12:04, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The burden of proof lies with the person adding the information. It also is upon us to add only what is verifiable. It may be that WND have a position on abortion, but we don't know that any position they take is worth mentioning here without that appearing in a secondary source. Adding links to WND pieces about abortion is not enough to show that the opinions being expressed are notable.
The source provided does not associate WND with a birther movement, it says that Farah is, which is a big difference. Find a source to say that WND are associated with the birther movement and then include it, or add the information to the article on Farah.
Finally the 'far-right' thing may be citable, but until it has a citation the proper thing to do is move it to the talkpage of the article to await sourcing, which I am doing now. Weakopedia ( talk) 23:49, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure just where to begin addressing the WP:OR problems with this edit. I have invited User:24.215.150.119 to comment here. JakeInJoisey ( talk) 06:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
(outdent) I don't think that having a 'political slant' makes them a non-RS. Most newspapers and media stations are described as 'left leaning' or 'traditionally supportive of party x' or 'liberal' or whatever, but we still use them. I don't think that Mother Jones is generally thought of as innacurate or false in it's reporting, so I think we can use Mother Jones but that we should attribute anything we use by them to them. Like for example we could say 'according to the liberal news magazine MJ' or something like that. A political slant doesn't mean we can't use it, it just means we have to be a bit more careful!
Jake has made a good point tho - what is left after the trimming may be verifiable, but it doesn't fit well where it is. The information is probably better incorporated into the bit about Obama directly above it, if it stays. Like Jake says, MJ may be a reliable source but we should be careful of using them as our only source for any controversial claims, and make sure we have other sources to back them up and provide the notability we need for inclusion on Wikipedia. Weakopedia ( talk) 07:35, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Are the neutrality and accuracy tags on the criticism section still warranted? Weakopedia ( talk) 11:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
After having viewed a source ( You Tube: video time=1:19/2:24) for Keith Olbermann's "Worst Person" reaction to Joseph Farah's commentary of Dec 20, 2008 [[http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=84065]], it is clear that Olbermann, himself, was confused as to the document to which Farah had referred (the "Obama Website" graphic, NOT the "FactCheck.org" graphic) in his (Farah's) commentary (which I explained in some detail above). It also appears that Farah, himself, may not have recognized Olbermann's confusion in constructing his (Farah's) rebuttal to Olbermann's "Worst Person" comments.
For the record, here is a transcript I made of Olbermann's comments which I believe to be an accurate presentation...
But our winner, Joseph Farah, the proprietor of WorldNetDaily. He is now denying that his lunatic-fringe, right-wing website verified the president-elect's birth certificate and, in so doing, destroyed an industry of conspiracy theorists who believe that Obama is from Kenya or, possibly, the moon. He says, quote "Nothing could be further from the truth". He adds "He did offer up to forgery experts a facsimile of a partial birth certificate. None of them could report conclusively that the electronic image was authentic or that it was a forgery.
Yeah (ed. in sarcastic tone). Joseph Farah's WorlNetDaily on August 23rd of last year posted and copyrighted this article by its guy, Drew Zahn. Quote (ed. and displayed in a graphic): "A separate investigation into Obama's birth certificate utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic." [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214 ed. link
Oops. That would make Mr. Farah of WorldNetDaily not just a bald-faced liar but one whose claim is easily disproved by his own website. Well, why do you think they call it the lunatic fringe.
Joseph Farah of WorldNetDaily, today's "worst person in the world".
This presents somewhat of an interesting conundrum in terms of WP:V and WP:UNDUE. While Olbermann's comments might be citable under WP:V, his now obvious error (and subsequent reports of those error-based comments) was neither challenged by Farah nor corrected (that I can find) anywhere else. Perhaps that may be attributed to a relative lack of notability for Olbermann's "Worst Person" comments in the first place.
IMHO, while legitimate arguments might be (and have been) raised as to Olbermann's "stand-alone" RS status under WP:UNDUE, this error-based commentary is even more troubling and I don't believe it rises to satisfy WP:V and WP:UNDUE criteria and its inclusion constitutes WP:POV.
Comments? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 18:18, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
None of them could report conclusively that the electronic image was authentic or that it was a forgery.
The scan released by the campaign shows halos around the black text, making it look (to some) as though the text might have been pasted on top of an image of security paper. But the document itself has no such halos, nor do the close-up photos we took of it. We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.
However, FactChecker.org says it obtained Obama's actual certification of live birth and that the document was indeed real. The site discredited some of the claims of Internet bloggers, such as that the certificate as viewed in a scanned copy released by Obama's campaign lacked a raised seal. FactChecker.org also established that many of the alleged flaws in the document noted by bloggers were caused by the scanning of the document.
Clearly, in context, it the WND writer is indicating they came to the same conclusions as Factcheck.org. The fault of the confusions of Farah(and the rest of those who sympathize with his views) is not to those who point out the contradictions, but lies on those who seem to believe that having an authentic birth certificate from the State of Hawaii does not prove with absolute certainty that Barack Obama was born there. If I had a Polaroid picture of you and scanned it into a computer, there would be no difference between the picture and the scan, if authenticated. And it's just illogical to claim otherwise. Trying to claim that "Well, I said the scanned image was authentic, but I didn't say the actual image was authentic or proved it was you", is just bizarre. Dave Dial ( talk) 00:50, 17 May 2010 (UTC)A separate WND investigation into Obama's certification of live birth utilizing forgery experts also found the document to be authentic. The investigation also revealed methods used by some of the bloggers to determine the document was fake involved forgeries, in that a few bloggers added text and images to the certificate scan that weren't originally there.
This sounds like unnecessary nitpicking. In August the website conceded that the birth certificate was authentic, then in December it said an image of it could not be authenticated. If the original is authentic, then casting doubt on a copy presented by Obama's own campaign, which would have no conceivable reason to produce a forgery, is very dishonest and represents a rather nasty bit of back-pedalling. Tasty monster (= TS ) 04:20, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
Jake, you're engaging in original research which is leading you to declare that everybody (including Farah) has his facts wrong except you.
That aside, I find it a little extraordinary that we're citing a small section, chiefly intended for entertainment though sometimes it is used for more serious purposes, of Olbermann's television show.
Few sources take the website seriously and even this piece would not have been broadcast if the producers of Olbermann's show hadn't found it amusing.
We should be wary of making articles on fringe websites just a catalog of derision. The refusal by Clear Channel, CBS and Lamar to accept the website's birther ads should make the cut (doesn't seem to be there now) but I'd be far more wary of chronicling this knockabout stuff. I'm not convinced that this particular material belongs here. Olbermann's show is well researched and wittily presented, but his "Worst Person in the World" is usually (and was here) one of the funny bits near the end. Tasty monster (= TS ) 14:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it would be inappropriate for us to discuss Olbermann's entertaining rant without first considering whether it's relevant to anything much because birthers are not Keith Olbermann's target audience. It was aimed at ridiculing an easy target, and I think your quibbling over detail is missing the point that it is of little weight.
As I remarked above, of more moment to the website is the refusal of at least three major billboard advertisers to accept the website's Obama-baiting ads, and we don't seem to be covering that at present. Keith Olbermann can make fun of Farah but it's unlikely to mean much, whereas the birther-weariness of advertising space agencies is a net cost to Farah. Tasty monster (= TS ) 16:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
I've restored text that was removed on the premise that it was sourced from the "unreliable" PolitiFact. In fact that service is a fact-checking operation run by the St. Petersburg Times and has won a Pulitzer for its work. -- TS 22:47, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I see the right wing lackeys are out to defend WND, even on the creditation issue. How many lies do you need to be caught in, how many libel/defamation lawsuits do you have to lose before other journalists refuse to sit in the same room with you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.45.35 ( talk) 08:51, 26 January 2011 (UTC)
These are two different concepts (but related), and two different articles:
Right-wingers aren't automatically conservative, and conservatives aren't automatically right wingers, but both phrases are used to describe this site's content and nature.
We need the lead to accurately reflect how the world and reliable sources view this website for our readers. Thoughts? rootology ( C)( T) 15:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I have moved it to the description section WorldNetDaily#Description where it belongs. I do not see any political tagging in the lede in the articles on The New York Times or Independent Media Center, for example. Why should this be different? The description is accurate and well-sourced, but putting it in the lead, unlike other publications, may be a WP:POV violation of Poisoning the well. -- Avi ( talk) 05:38, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
As of 9/16/09 the first sentence says republican, far right, or conservative. Regardless of where WND leans equating these three different ideas is inaccurate. Republican is center right (according to wikipedia) and saying that is the same thing as far right doesn't make sense. 4:17 PST 9/16/09 (rocke4444)
At least the first sentence of the site has changed from stating WND is a "news source" to " American online web site, but American is questionable since since Farah often describes himself as an Arab-American and has many have noted WND does not necessarily represent views of Americans or the conservative party. On the contrary, many conservatives (ie REPUBLICANS) are actively boycotting World Net Daily over the "birther" idiocy that that tabloid pushes: http://www.politicsdaily.com/2009/09/01/conservative-boycott-of-right-wing-worldnetdaily-over-embarrass/ Even WND itself acknowledges this fact. There are other countless other web articles to support the position that WND is NOT CONSERVATIVE. The best way to describe WND is a radical right wing propaganda tabloid. When websites like stormfront.org (a neo-nazi organization) and white supremacy sites (the KKK for example) frequently cite WND articles as valid news sources (even though most would recognize that they are not) it's insulting and disturbing for Wikipedia to infer that WND views are equated with those of the GOP or Americans in general for that matter. http://digg.com/world_news/Google_StormFront_WorldNetDaily_1_450_hits 76.187.246.201 ( talk) 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)AgiosTheseus
This website is a radical extreme website that incites hatred and spreads gossip for a politcal agenda, that is not conservative but radical. There is not enough criticism about how they have very often twisted words and "reported" statements as facts when they were not. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-krepel/whats-worldnetdaily-hidin_b_224496.html
sidebar comment: I'm somewhat bemused by the apparently unintentionally ironic lead-in of the huffpost article you point to above: "As the saying goes: When you have nothing to hide, you hide nothing." Actually, I'm more amused than bemused. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I removed this section
Without a source, other than WND, to support this it is original research. There was a source on the article that discussed it but has since been removed [11] so maybe that can be added to make some sense of it all but until then it is inappropriate - if it were not then we could add every article that WND ever wrote. Weakopedia ( talk) 08:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
References
Per Publisher's Weekly - WND Books is no longer in a partnership w/a religious publisher Thomas Nelson. In fact, it has been several years since they went their separate ways, and a look at the WND Books listings clearly shows that there are few Christian religious and family values titles. Therefore the characterization by The Guardian the WND Books is "a niche producer of rightwing conspiracy theories, religious books and 'family values' tracts", is mainly inaccurate, so I have removed it. KeptSouth ( talk) 19:28, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
"ConWebWatch" is cited as a source several times in this article despite its being "self-published". As noted above, "self-published" sources are not WP:RS for "...claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities)". ConWebWatch, therefore, does not satisfy the WP:RS requirement as an RS for this article and all citations should be removed with subsequent consideration given to WP:V for formerly supported content. Comments? JakeInJoisey ( talk) 16:08, 31 May 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please take a look at this section for POV issues? The preponderance of quotes are from the WND staff member and the amount of rather vitriolic quotation seems to slant the section in a POV direction. 76.218.68.67 ( talk) 07:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
I really hesitate to dive into this talk page, but I'm going to anyway. This sentence is the focus of an edit war. It's claimed to be sourced. What is it sourced to? The source at the end of the paragraph doesn't support it. I think it's probably true, but I don't see a source for it. Is there something going on that I don't understand?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah ( talk) 00:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
Someone should update that list to include Judith Reisman's article comparing GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Education Network) and participants in the Day of Silence to Nazis and the Hitler Youth ASAP. 207.75.37.104 ( talk) 23:03, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again the World Net Daily is complaining of being denied press access. Just like at the Copenhagen council on Global Warming it was denied a press credential; and now we see a complaint that it is being denied Washington D.C. access by the White House Press Corps, with an accusation that Obama is using the Press Corps to restrict opposing viewpoints: Under the President George W. Bush administration the opposing viewpoints were noxious and notorious--openly offensive in slander against Republicans--for the man accused of being a drunk, while President Barack Obama would wear a "party naked" t-shirt at a videotaped conference (whole different points of view are being seen in identity politics, that in the reverses show a lot of hypocrisy). Barack Obama is notorious for using exclusive access for paying clients, as he is a lawyer trained family, where even during the President Election he would personally tell uninvited guests to go-away; but as a public figure from the White House the Obama and the Democrats he coat-tailed (they ride his coat-tails behind him) into the President Halls of Empowerment is having problems restricting press access, as he has gave orders to the press--in the past--to not record his public speeches, that is a gag order, like seen in courts of law, that is a violation of the freedom of press, because legal authorities have no right to censor the press for their personal purposes. World Net Daily, that covers many topics, is seeing their complaints at restricted access: I have read World Net Daily, it is not the Sun of London; they actually are critical of the problems in government and other things that show abuse, inconsistent, power-ploys, and the usual identity politics of government showing the hypocrisy in the face of our real world--as the cycle of life continues its clown show of arrogance, vanity, narcissism, weakness, speculations, imaginations, and futility. There is a wikipedia complaint that the left is censoring World Net Daily, and like a moth to flame they show up at their eye-sore (they surround themselves with what they approve and banish the eye-sore), never seen different at that behavior (even the Christian churches online get the witches, homosexuals, lesbians, pagans, atheist, and every ball-buster to show up with their personal stream of insanity demanding obedience from Jesus Christ to their personal "Sid and Marty Krofft" world of children viewpoints from the "Land of the Lost," and World Net Daily faces the same problem). The complaint: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139657 Have a nice day.
What does this bizarre rant have to do with the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.169.162.217 ( talk) 10:15, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
In the "Controversies" section, there is section titled "Libel Lawsuit". Reading through it, the culmination of the suit was a jointly drafted statement that WND misquoted sources. Why is this entire section here? It falls way below the expected level of WP:Notability for Wikipedia. I'm sure if I checked other web or print news sources, there would be NO mentions of any suits against the company while in fact these types of suits are extremely common and happen all the time so why is this one case printed here (especially since it ended up in a non-verdict). How many times has the New York Times, Chicago Tribune or Newsweek (or any daily/weekly) been sued for libel or mis-quoting sources? 100's of times - 1000's? Heck - The Huffington Post is CONSTANTLY cited for printing content that people find libalous (ref recent Catholic-bashing article). The only reason I see for this being here is someone has a non-NPOV axe to grind. However, I'm happy to be proven wrong before I delete the entire section. Ckruschke ( talk) 18:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
FYI. Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#WorldNetDaily -- Shuki ( talk) 07:44, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Better link for that is WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_38#World_Net_Daily -- Larrybob ( talk) 19:35, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Guys, half this article is cited to WND. That's a WP:PRIMARY problem, but it's also specifically violative of WP:RSN's position that WND is only a reliable source for its opinions, not for facts. I'm giving notice that I intend to remove all factual assertions cited to WND that aren't assertions as to WND's opinions. 24.177.120.138 ( talk) 04:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems pretty black and white to me. 24.177.120.138 ( talk) 02:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)Sigh, not again. It's been clearly agreed (you know, that "consensus" thing we have) before that apart from editorial opinion, if one is unable to source a supposedly factual statement without having to use WND, it probably doesn't belong in an encyclopedia article.
Actually, the previous discussions seems to indicate that WND is not an open and shut case. I see a rough consensus for saying that it is unreliable (but with significant disagreement)...and a lot of agreement that no source is always either 100% reliable or 100% unreliable.
Consensus is clear that WND is not a reliable source for factual claims, but of course can be used as a reliable source for its own, or its writers' opinion. Some of these edits are a grey area when it concerns factual claims about WND by WND. In those cases, it would be acceptable as long as it adheres to the self-publish guidelines of RS which are:
Given that, using WND as a source in an article about WND would definitely be on a case-by-case basis. -- Loonymonkey ( talk) 15:18, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
I believe it is enough to say "writing for The Guardian" rather than "writing for the liberal The Guardian". The label "liberal" is a mere distraction to me. The Guardian is well-known enough. -- Edcolins ( talk) 19:07, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
And I agree with Loonymonkey's edit summary here. Indeed, it's a very good point. -- Edcolins ( talk) 19:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Just had an edit conflict. Won't repeat what I said as Dave has said it better. In any case, having a broad assortment of material doesn't stop them from being a niche producer, they don't contradict. Dougweller ( talk) 16:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
The lead claim is that the website has promoted a number of conspiracy theories, but the content of the and the sources used only has one (the Barack Obama birther stuff).
Should that be changed?
Marquis de Faux ( talk) 22:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I find it quite amusing that conservative news sources are labelled conservative, but those with a CLEAR """liberal""" bias, like NYT for instance, are 'just a newspaper'.
REALLY makes you think!
Furthermore, the very first reference is hilariously bad--is your source that WND is conservative a quote by a politico writer referring to it as the 'conservative website WND'? That hardly holds any weight.
-- Crisbrm ( talk) 19:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
and more
etc. etc.
Please stop removing text based on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 18:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
A suggestion above: We can say both as a compromise - "which has been described as conservative [sources] or far-right [sources]". This sounds good to me. -- Hoary ( talk) 03:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I have a (I think slight) problem with this edit. I don't think we can say in Wikipedia voice that it is "a conservative website", only that "it has been described as conservative". The distinction is important, especially since I'm pretty sure there's lots of conservatives out there who would wish not to be associated with the kind of fringe material WND publishes. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 22:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
I am new to editing, and genuinely do not understand why WND is not considered reliable. That is not my way of saying I think it is, I am just looking for clarification on why this site specifically is not considered reliable, perhaps in bullet points. I also don't fully understand how the talk pages work so sorry if this is not the proper use of it or I have missed something.
I guess my other question is who is the 'decider' of things like these. Is there a vote or an editor with final say? How does consensus form? What if there are many arguments on the talk page about why x site is unreliable, but I don't find them to be compelling arguments? How is it decided officially that an edit can be removed from an article due to an unreliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Proustfala ( talk • contribs) 05:18, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Besides the deleted Chicago Tribune source, I found [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]. Doug Weller talk 10:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not a consumer of WND.com, but in reading this Wikipedia article, I have to agree with so many others above who point out the obvious lack of disinterest by the editors. Like many articles in Wikipedia on "fringe" and ""far right" news sites, this one poisons the well in the first sentence. Why is that unreliable lefty news sources (e.g. Media Matters) are always initially described as "progressive" with an immediate reference to the site's mission statement? Never are they called "far left" in the lead sentence (although they inarguably are).
Well, here is WND's mission statement -- how about including it in the opening paragraph:
“WND is an independent news company dedicated to uncompromising journalism, seeking truth and justice and revitalizing the role of the free press as a guardian of liberty. We remain faithful to the traditional and central role of a free press in a free society – as a light exposing wrongdoing, corruption and abuse of power. We also seek to stimulate a free-and-open debate about the great moral and political ideas facing the world and to promote freedom and self-government by encouraging personal virtue and good character.” [1]
And while the bulk of this article discusses WND's "Controversies" at great length, it fails to mention a single one of the news stories the site has broken over the years. Where is the paragraph on that? Christian B Martin ( talk) 21:03, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
"We rarely include mission statements." Uh, hello ... Doug? Any one home? My comment included a link for the Wikipedia article on Media Matters and to that article's inclusion of that entity's "virtually always self-serving" mission statement in the lead sentence. And there are other examples of course. Christian B Martin ( talk) 02:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
"So what? That's a different article." Huh? That was the whole point of my comment nincompoop -- that Wikipedia articles on news sources are inequitable based on the ideological bias of the news site. And so an example of this was given. As I must boringly repeat, you clearly do not read attentively and should certainly steer clear of editing. (By the way, who is this "We" you pompously speak of in "We rarely include mission statements"). As for the "sources" you seek from me, if you really care, they are certainly out there for YOU to find. Boring! Christian B Martin ( talk) 02:41, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
References
Not sure what they add -- if WorldNetDaily is allowed to be an acceptable source for non-exceptional non-promotional claims about itself (in the usual way), then the tags should be removed. If it isn't, then this article would seem to need radical surgery (not just tagging)... AnonMoos ( talk) 06:14, 22 March 2020 (UTC)