Talk:WorldNetDaily/Archive 1

Note: this stub, "WorldNetDaily" and the article "World Net Daily" appear to describe the same thing, though with some unique content in each; they should be combined.

Combination
Any objections to me moving the content from World Net Daily here and making World Net Daily into a redirect to WorldNetDaily?

--RobbieFal 02:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

No POV
No POV in the article, but there is facts. Same goes for the NewsMax article. If someone doesn't like the incorrect stories (all three examples), take it up with the WND website not the Wiki article. It is not point of view to show that the source has repeatedly offered incorrect articles to the public. -FK

Inaccurate
Whereas a view of the World Net Daily site will indeed reveal links to external articles, it seems the site itself produces quite a large amount of articles in-house. Unless there is blatant plagiary in the works, the majority of the articles listed are attributed to WND and are marked as "Exclusive". All articles seem to have their sources listed directly underneath their hyperlinked titles. The allegation that World Net Daily is a News clipping service only seems unsubstantiated without proof and sources. A casual glance at the site seems to imply the opposite, as I keep running into references that claim that major networks glean articles from WND. However I have been unable to find the source of this claim, and therefore will not include it in this stub. --Coldbourne 08:05, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

No bias here
Wow the page has a title, intro and a huge section called "Misinformation." Hardly NPOV Barneygumble 21:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Well, WND isn't the most accurate news organ out there. If the section on their mistakes is presented in an impartial and non-sensational manor, I don't see why it wouldn't belong.  I agree that it'd be nice to have general information that's more in-depth, though. -Colin Kimbrell 14:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Merged
World net daily controversy is now merged with WND. Arbustoo 21:01, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Exceedingly biased article
What's with this huge "Misinformation" section? Seems like a negative diatribe against this particular site and is out of place. Maybe it could have been a link of its own to another page called: "What I personally disagree with WND about." instead of cluttering up actual topical information here. Could you imagine if someone put a huge list of everything they found wrong with every media outlet in every Wiki article? What a mess. Keep that garbage to your personal blog which you can impress your friends with. Dozens of examples of a specific point makes for dull, pointless, redundancy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.50 (talk • contribs)

I agree with the above sentiments. Wikipedia articles should be brief and concise, but there may be plenty of external links expressing opinions or reporting incidents such as alluded to above. If every skirmish such as these were posted as a result of WND's independent journalism causing scandal or controversy, there would be end to this article because of addenda ad infinitum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JGabbard (talk • contribs)

Rewrite
This article needs to be rewritten because of poor writing AND bias. Can presenting facts be biased? Of course it can. If I include a section "Heinous Crimes Committed by Tasmanians" in an article about Tasmania, it would (hopefully) be removed ,though factual. Unless inaccurate reporting is generally accepted as a defining characteristic of WND, rather that just controversial, then itemizing inaccuracies should not be done. If the controversies about WND are especially notable, i.e., would be conspicuous by their absence from the article, then the controversies themselves could be briefly described (examples unnecessary) in a separate section entitled "Controversies". But even then one must be careful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.148.191.50 (talk • contribs)

The other stuff if just grammar and syntax and could be easily corrected.

Removed: One World Government
"In early 2006 WND ran an article alleging that the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations were involved in a conspiracy with 'centuries old secret societies' to subvert the United States to one world religion and government.[ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=49197 ]"

Comment: this is false. The said "article" is actually a book offering. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.70.139 (talk • contribs)


 * Well, in the article WND does not dispute the book's claims as it offers it for sale. WND claims, "You may not accept everything Monteith offers, but one thing is for sure: After reading "Brotherhood of Darkness," you will never look at the world in the same way again." Arbusto 22:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible Removal of Controversy Section?
I've removed and/or replaced several obviously POV descriptors with more tame language. There still remains work to be done, however.

As it stands now, the article would appear to be a forum wherein any possibility of WND publishing a story with even one ounce of veracity seems to be excluded. If someone deems this the place to, on balance, record every known instance of WND's able reporting, then the Controversy section should remain by all means. However, and I feel this is more probably the case, if it is judged that this entry is not the place for such a litany, said section (and sub-sections) should be removed. Please follow with comments.

On to my next task of recording and adding every NY Times misprint and retraction to that entry. Hectard 17:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Examples of incorrect or controversial subjects is normal in wiki articles. WND isn't the most reliable news source, but if they retracted these stories post those links here and we can discuss keeping/removing them.


 * Also WND is conservative; I reverted your changes. It is not "POV" to call a liberal site liberal or conservative a conservative source. It is POV, however, to remove such. Yes, the article needs improved though. For the record, Farah is unbashedfully conservative. Arbusto 19:54, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Basic Journalism Standards
Several IP addresses keep adding that WND ignores basic journalistic standards. Please make your case here. The citation that follows the statement does not show this - WND is merely reporting that a television station reported something. You might say that any story involving a UFO is sensational, which is why I haven't touched that statement, at least for now. A citation of "harsh criticism" of WND is still needed, but I at least believe that. Kc8ukw 16:27, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

WND a "blog"?
I think that the definition of a "blog" does not apply to WND. WND is way above that. It is an independent virtual newspaper with journalistic standards and many different writers, including some stationed in news hotspots like the Middle East, for example. I want to edit out the assertion that WND is a blog because it is a website of much higher standing than any blog one might name. Any objections? 74.102.58.135 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. (And you should totally get a username, yo.)  Kc8ukw 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's been a few days since I posted my intentions and received no objections, and one agreement (Thanks Kc8ukw). So I have made the change I proposed. (My decision not to get a username here at Wikipedia is a personal decision, but thanks for the invitation just the same.) 74.102.58.135 00:09, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Added Soy making kids 'gay'
I added section on Soy making kids 'gay' as further example of logical failure and ideologically driven reporting from WND. Mcas 19:46, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I've removed this section, as I don't think it an appropriate addition to the article. It is not an example of a controversy, especially as the article is new and has gone largely unnoticed. It is controversial, but so are a hundred articles WND has written - we have highlighted four big cases. Adding more, especially of this level, is unnecessary and just makes the article longer, but not more enlightening. Kc8ukw 23:34, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. Stack 17:28, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I re-added the 'soy' article, and deleted the paragraph from Popular Mechanics disputing WND's flight 93 claims. The article is about WND, not 9/11. The soy claims are getting a lot of attention and are notable, IMHO. - F.A.A.F.A. 20:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please try to come to a consensus on this page before putting stuff back like that. Actions like that have a serious tendency to hurt the situation, as they begin revert wars.  Again, let's discuss the issue before we make any unilateral decisions.  Until we do come to a consensus, I believe the disputed content should be removed from the body of the article, which I will be doing shortly.


 * Reproduced for ease of discussion:
 * Soy is making kids 'gay'
 * In December 2006 WorldNetDaily published a commentary by Jim Rutz titled Soy is making kids 'gay' claiming that soy is a "a slow poison ... that's severely damaging our children and threatening to tear apart our culture." [ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53327 ] Despite the widely-held belief in the scientific community and food industries that not only is soy safe, but healthier than other alternatives and an absence of scientific evidence to support his opinion, Rutz claims that that soy is "feminizing."


 * Stack 21:42, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is in need of serious attention, and I'm going to give it some. It has glaring POV and sourcing problems. The second sentence is an unsourced POV claim of dubious nature - " It is considered one of the top online conservative news blogs". "top"? What does that mean? Most popular? Most accurate? Most salacious? Who considers it that? World Net Daily readers? I look forward to editing this article so it reflects reality and a NPOV. - F.A.A.F.A. 23:34, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You said, "Please try to come to a consensus on this page before putting stuff back like that." So it's okay for one person to remove something without a consensus, but returning it requires more than one person's vote? Why is there even an article on WorldNetDaily here at Wikipedia? This whole soy/WND debacle -- which is now being covered in The New York Times, no less -- underscores it's clearly not a legitimate news source. Just because a site gets a lot of hits and attention -- no doubt, in great part, because of its absurd content -- does not make it noteworthy for an encyclopedia article. 207.69.137.202 06:07, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Whatever you think of WND, it does not need to be a legitimate news source to deserve a Wikipedia article. Otherwise we wouldn't have articles on all the supermarket tabloids, for example. Kc8ukw 17:52, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, it is OK for one person to remove something until a consensus is reached. There was a consensus on the previous state of the article - at least, it stood mostly unchanged for a long time.  The new addition is what is disputed.  Thus, I am removing the section on soy until we do truly reach a consensus.  Even if it was mentioned by the Times, (and I would appreciate a link if you have one), I believe my original arguments still apply.  This is a comparatively minor matter - the WND page does not need to be lengthenend by yet another mention of a controversial article of this caliber. Thanks for the comments, folks. Kc8ukw 21:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the link...unfortunately, its subscribers only...http://select.nytimes.com/2006/12/17/opinion/17rich.html?hp Greatal386 01:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not when it violates WP:OWN or becomes an edit war. There's broad support for this article, which I've just restored. You've yet to provide a valid justification for why it should not be covered; an article claiming soy makes kids gay is the very definition of a controversial article. FeloniousMonk 02:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Greetings unto the monk. I did provide justification of why it should not be covered in my opening statements.  Yes, it is a controversial article - WND has written a ton of them, and we cannot report on every one.  In addition to my earlier statements, I also think we are giving undue weight to criticism of WND, since hundreds of thousands of people use the website every day without complaint, and thereby not presenting a NPOV.  (Half of the article is now on controversies.)  Perhaps we could rustle up some positive comments on the site by others for balance - there have been plenty.  I don't know if that would be appropriate or not.  To be frank, I'm worried that some of this activity on an article that was so quiet for so long is coming from quarters more concerned with painting WND in a negative light than producting a well-written, honest, and balanced article. Kc8ukw 15:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently the soy article generated more interest than I thought it would: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53425. Kc8ukw 03:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Claims
"WorldNetDaily claims to be "the largest independent, full-service newssite in the world."[7]."

Link goes to a 2004 WND article, (not a RS V secondary source) dead Alexa links and claims from Farrah himself. If it was a valid claim in 2004, it no longer is, as asserted. WND also is not as popular as several 'liberal' sites, and this might be important to include. More claims in need of attention coming! - F.A.A.F.A. 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

So perhaps that could be changed to, "In 2004, WND claimed..." Otherwise I think it is fine. WND is making the claim, not Wikipedia. We're just reporting it. Kc8ukw 00:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Without third-party verification, this unsubsantiated claim is no different than original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Per the Wikipedia official policy on verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Further on in that same official policy, note the following: If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. 207.69.137.202 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Third party sources are extremely important, generally, but here, we are saying WND has claimed something. What better source, then, then a page, by WND, making that claim?  We've struck gold in this case. Kc8ukw 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Two Sections Removed
I've removed two sections on controversial articles for the following reasons:

1. They were written with definite POV. 2. They make sweeping generalizations, and... 3. They were written entirely with ConWebWatch as a source, and as this website seems to be the work of one man, I don't believe it meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. 4. As I've said before, I think we are giving undue weight to criticism on WND, in violation of the NPOV policy, since hundreds of thousands of people use the site everyday without complaint. I do, however, recognize that controversies are more newsworthy here than daily stories, so I think the remaining four sections are important and will try to make them as well written as possible. Kc8ukw 04:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Those sections have been readded, so I now list the four points above as reasons they should be removed. Please comment. Kc8ukw 05:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

For reference, the sections involved are:


 * Middle East reporting
 * In early 2005, WND hired Aaron Klein to run a Jerusalem bureau.[ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=42535 ] Klein's articles have regularly promoted the causes of Israeli settlers in the West Bank and Gaza who oppose Israel's unilateral disengagement plan from those areas. He has frequently written about right-wing Israeli activists tied to the far-right Kach and Kahane Chai movement without disclosing those ties. When Eden Natan-Zada shot and killed four people on a bus in Gaza on August 4, 2005, he was beaten to death afterwards by a crowd that witnessed the shooting. Klein wrote an article for WND claiming that Zada was "murdered" by a "mob of Palestinians."[ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=45608 ] Klein has also written numerous articles critical of Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert.


 * Terri Schiavo case
 * WorldNetDaily published numerous stories about the Terri Schiavo case. Its articles consistently promoted the accusations made by Terri Schiavo's parents and their supporters and regularly demonized Terri's husband, Michael Schiavo, and his supporters. Diana Lynne, who "covered the Terri Schiavo story for three years as a reporter and news editor for WorldNetDaily,"[ http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46875 ] wrote a book, published by WND Books, that showed a similar bias toward Terri Schiavo's parents and against Michael Schiavo.

Kc8ukw 05:53, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

As there has been no comment or objection after nearly 4 days, I am again removing the sections. Kc8ukw 23:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)


 * And I've restored them. Your objections to the content are specious; it is well supported and sourced and written in neutral language. Look a the sections above and you'll see a number of others who have objected to their removal over the last few weeks; just because no one is willing to explain yet again why the content is not only acceptable per WP standards but necessary does not mean that it does not enjoy support. This constant seeking removal or discrediting of this particular section is verging on a campaign to bowdlerize this article in the defense of its subject and needs to stop. FeloniousMonk 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * My response:


 * 1. Others have objected to their removal over the last few weeks? Where?  We've been debating the soy article.  If you're referring to the "Possible Removal of Controversy Section?" section - well, I'm not suggesting we remove the controversy section.  And apparently Hectard would agree with me that we are giving undue weight to the controversies.


 * 2. They were written with definite POV. For example, "regularly demonized Terri's husband."


 * 3. As part of the POV, they make sweeping generalizations. For example, "regularly promoted the causes of Israeli settlers," "articles consistently promoted the accusations made by Terri Schiavo's parents."  Statements this broad are hard to check without reading every article WND has ever published, but I suppose you might still argue they are true, but...


 * 4. The source for these statements is no good. In fact, other than WND, it is the only source for both these sections.  This source, ConWebWatch, appears to be the work of one man, Terry Krepel and therefore, per the Wikipedia verifiability policy, should only be used in articles about Terry Krepel (or ConWebWatch.)  Add to this the fact that I don't think he is an impartial reporter - in short, these sections of the WND article accuse WND of bias, and then cite an itself biased source as their justification.


 * 5. And finally, I think we are violating the NPOV policy by giving undue weight to criticism on WND. I brought this up at the end of the soy debate and no one refuted it.


 * As for the "campaign to bowdlerize this article," my goal in working on this article, very explicitly, is to raise it to Good Article status. I think that, after the removal of these sections, it will meet every criteria except for stability, and that will just take time.  Plus, to be frank, I also, for example, opposed "Israel's unilateral disengagement plan," so I don't think it makes WND look bad to say their articles regularly promoted people who did as well.  I don't know if it's true, and I seriously question the sourcing for these two sections.


 * Kc8ukw 02:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm removing the sections again. If anyone believes they are actually a valid part of this article, please refute, not just dismiss, the points above, particularly 4 and 5. Kc8ukw 01:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Myself and others already have many times above, and it seems to bounce right off you. Why should we have to do it again? If you want to delete properly supported and word content that's enjoyed consensus, the onus is on you to make your case, not others to prevent you.
 * The sections you keep deleting are notable, verifiable, relevant, and worded neutrally worded. Myself and others above have found your objections lacking. Your actions here are verging on edit warrig and a pov campaign to bowdlerize the article and are becoming disruptive. Please reconsider your method of contributing here. FeloniousMonk 01:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you believe that Krepel is lying about his qualifications as a journalist? And even that were the case, that would make the statements unsourced, not impossible to source - why do you believe that they are impossible to source?  Guettarda 04:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know if Krepel is lying about his qualifications as a journalist - I've never even seen him state his qualifications, I think he is biased from reading his articles. My main point is that because ConWebWatch is entirely his work, it doesn't qualify as a valid source for this article.  Perhaps the statements could be validly sourced, although they make such generalizations they would probably have to be substantially modified.  Certainly they should be removed until they are validly sourced.  Even if they were, they would still have the other problems I mentioned. Kc8ukw 05:32, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Guettarda is correct; it's your objection is what lacks proper sourcing, not the content you've been trying to remove again and again. It's becoming more and more clear that you're grasping at straws, any straws, here. FeloniousMonk 05:43, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you want me to source? ConWebWatch seems to be the work of Terry Krepel and only Terry Krepel.  Certainly he is the editor of ConWebWatch, and the writer of the articles we cite here.  Thus, I believe that they qualify as self published sources with no editorial oversight and thus shouldn't be cited as a source here.  What would you like me to elaborate on?.  (And let me emphasize, even if he is a good source, we still have other problems here.) Kc8ukw 05:49, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, please do elaborate - please explain why you believe that Krepel is lying about his credentials? If he is being honest about his credentials, as stated on ConWebWatch and MMFA, then he's a reliable source.  He only fails WP:V if he is lying about his credentials.  The only way your complaint holds any water is if he is lying about his credentials.  So either support your allegation, or stop wasting everyone's time.  Guettarda 16:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:V says "In general, sources of dubious reliability are sources with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no fact-checking facilities or editorial oversight. Sources of dubious reliability should only be used in articles about the author(s)." As I've said, ConWebWatch as a whole appears to have no editorial oversight, and the articles we cite certainly had none. (He calls it his "personal venture" on its "About" page.)  So what do you mean by "He only fails WP:V if he is lying about his credentials."?  It seems like these souces fail WP:V regardless of his credentials. Kc8ukw 17:18, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies - I was assuming you had actually read the whole policy page. Go back and read the rest of WP:V.  Wikipedia policies and guidelines are not legal documents - they are descriptive rather than prescriptive.  If you want to cherry pick bits, at least they should be from the relevant section.  Guettarda 21:35, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I have read all of WP:V. Could you quote the part you think negates what I'm saying?  Also, could we end the insults?  They add nothing to the discussion, and if I really am in the wrong, you should be trying to teach me so I don't make the same mistake again, not attack me.  Attacks are the refuge of those who have no honest defense. Kc8ukw 22:42, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd hate for you to take this as yet another attack, but there's a difference between sarcasm and "attacks". I don't know whether you are simply being obtuse, whether you are trying to waste my time, or whether you honestly can't find your way down one paragraph to the section on self-published sources.  There's a difference between a sarcastic response to an obtuse comment and an attack.  On the other hand, your implication that I am dishonest is beyond the pale - even with your semi-caveat below, it a appears to be a calculated insult and violates the personal attack policy.  So read the applicable paragraph on the policy page, and then explain to me why you believe that Krepel is a liar.  If you can't be bothered to do that, then please stop wasting everyone's time.  I'm sure you have better things to do than call me dishonest and Krepel a liar.  Guettarda 07:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * And, to clarify that last sentence before I'm eaten - attacks have other sources to, but they are the refuge of those with no honest defense. Thus, for my sake they should be stopped just because they annoy me, and for your sake they should be stopped, because they make it seem like you don't have a case, even if you do.  Kc8ukw 23:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Also! I welcome your reply, but know that I am getting married on Saturday (woo-hoo!), so I may be incommunicado until Monday.  We shall see, but if I don't reply, there is your explanation. Kc8ukw 02:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! Guettarda 07:40, 4 January 2007 (UTC)