Talk:WorldNetDaily/Archive 2

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:

• On August 2, 2009, WorldNetDaily published an article claiming that a certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained and produced by Orly Taitz, a leading citizenship conspiracy theorist. The document purportedly proved that Barack Obama had been born at a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya^[3]. The document has almost immediately proven to be a fake^[4]. On September 6, Taitz released another birth certificate supposedly proving Obama's Kenyan birth^[5]; this was also debunked as a fake, this time by WND reporter Jerome Corsi.

The following assertion that...

World Net Daily was "....claiming that a certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained..."

...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...

"Is this really smoking gun of Obama's Kenyan birth?"

WASHINGTON – California attorney Orly Taitz, who has filed a number of lawsuits demanding proof of Barack Obama's eligibility to serve as president, has released a copy of what purports to be a Kenyan certification of birth and has filed a new motion in U.S. District Court for its authentication.

[snip]

It was allegedly issued as a certified copy of the original in February 1964.

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...

"The document purportedly proved that Barack Obama had been born at a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya"

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...

"An image purporting to represent this certified copy of birth registration is at the article."

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...

• On August 2, 2009, WorldNetDaily reported that an alleged certified copy of registration of Obama's birth had been obtained and produced by Orly Taitz, a leading citizenship conspiracy theorist, and that Mr. Taitz offered it as documentary evidence supporting his allegation that Barack Obama had been born at a hospital in Mombasa, Kenya.^[6]. The document has almost immediately proven to be a fake^[7]. On September 6, Taitz released another birth certificate supposedly proving Obama's Kenyan birth^[8]; this was also debunked as a fake, this time by WND reporter Jerome Corsi.

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 document was almost immediately proven to be a fake^[9]

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)

I removed some more. The Obama section said that WND had run a campaign against Obama over the birth certificate which was later proved to be false, however the two 'sources' provided did not even mention WND at all. Basically WND did some reporting on the birth certificate, a while later some other people in the news discussed the birth certificate, and that caused someone to come here and add all that to the article despite the two events being unconnected. However since there was no sourcing for that section, and I can't find a reliable secondary source to say that WND caused any controversy over this. The entire passage was original research and couldn't be supported so I removed it. Weakopedia (talk) 06:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

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 believe your assessment may be accurate. All offerings in this section should be checked for sourcing adequate to establishing WND's notability as an identifiable party subjected to WP:RS criticism in something other than an editor's perhaps POV perception. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

After some consideration and as your original comment appears to suggest a "section" neutrality problem, I am taking the liberty of re-designating your "POV" tag as a section tag, and both linking and re-naming this section IAW suggested Wiki guidelines. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 14:48, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

On a general note the article is quite poor, although getting better. Most of the 'sources' are from WND articles. Contributors to the article have taken statements from WND that they didn't like and put them here, then tried to justify their inclusion by adding sources to say that in general people who make these kind of statements aren't liked. Original research at best - I really don't know how it has stayed like this, especially since there is a discussion about the article at RS/N. How did anyone there make up their minds when the article was so bad? I have removed more Obama stuff - there was no source claiming controversy, just a WND piece debunking an alleged Obama birth certificate, which they had already referred to as alleged in a previous article. How is that controversial? And anyway, it isn't for us to judge, only verify - and verification is not possible since it seems no-one thought it controversial. Except whoever added it to this article. Weakopedia (talk) 07:23, 23 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)

Alright then, I've made a similar change in the article where appropriate. American Eagle (talk) 05:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine by me --JakeInJoisey (talk) 05:41, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with the your change as well, as long as pro-WND isn't "claimed" while anti-WND is "stated". As long as both sides are given equal treatment, "states" works for me. :) American Eagle (talk) 06:50, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I certainly agree with your point and more than catch your drift. I'd suggest, however, that regardless of our perspectives, we can both be on the same side...NPOV.

Quite frankly, IMHO this article is/was simply such a disaster in terms of the chronic misrepresentation of purported "facts" that I've not even looked at the finer aspects of NPOV like the use of "weasel words" to inject POV...but I'm grateful for any observations in that regard nonetheless. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Further examination of this article content reveals even more misrepresentation of fact. The article currently contains the following...

In an August 23, 2008, article about Berg's lawsuit, WND claimed it had investigated Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate utilizing forgery experts and, "found the document to be authentic,"^[1] contradicting claims made in other WND articles and in Corsi's book.^{[citation needed]} However, on December 20, after numerous liberal websites, politicians and media personalities touted WND's findings, Joseph Farah claimed in a WND column that the forgery experts had not actually concluded it was authentic and that, "None of them could report conclusively that the electronic image [of the birth certificate on Obama's campaign website] was authentic or that it was a forgery."^[2]

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),...

WND claimed it had investigated Obama's Hawaiian birth certificate utilizing forgery experts

...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...

However,...

...quite obviously implying that subsequent text would qualify, somehow, WND's earlier reportage supporting the authenticity of the FactCheck "image" and its purported content...

...on December 20,...Joseph Farah claimed in a WND column that the forgery experts had not actually concluded it was authentic and that, "None of them could report conclusively that the electronic image [of the birth certificate on Obama's campaign website] was authentic or that it was a forgery."

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)...

WND did offer up to forgery experts the facsimile of a partial birth certificate posted on his website.

...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)...

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.

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)...

In an August 23, 2008, article about Berg's lawsuit, WND reported it had investigated FactCheck.org's proffered image of the "Obama Birth Certificate" utilizing forgery experts and, "found the document to be authentic,"^[3] On December 20, 2008, in a WND column, Joseph Farah claimed that an examination of the original Obama Campaign proffered image by forgery experts could not "report conclusively that the electronic image was authentic or that it was a forgery." [http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=84065]

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)

In continuing to consider the reportage on this issue, the FactCheck article of Aug 21, 2008, on closer examination, appears to suggest that Farah's skepticism as to the authenticity of the Obama Campaign proffered document, expressed in his Dec 20 commentary, might not be without some foundation. To re-iterate, FactCheck observes...

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...We conclude that the halo seen in the image produced by the campaign is a digital artifact from the scanning process.

Note that FactCheck.org does not dismiss, out-of-hand, the legitimacy of skepticism expressed "by some" as to a definitive establishment of the authenticity of the Obama Campaign proffered image or its content. In fact, they appear to be of the opinion that those expressions of skepticism were legitimate enough to warrant their own examination and to report their own "conclusion" as to the suspect halos. Also note that this expression of skepticism was apparently not limited to WND alone since the phrase "by some" suggests multiple (albeit unidentified) sources. Had WND been the sole source for this "skepticism", it seems likely that FactCheck would have so stated in its commentary. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 13:29, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Most of the Criticism section (I renamed controversies) is sourced to WND itself. That means that it is the opinion of a Wikipedia editor we are reading. Right now the Obama section has two paragraphs. The first is entirely original research, taking references from WND and then inserting them to make a point. I was about to remove the whole paragraph but that involves rewriting the second, which does at least have a source, so I am going to investigate the claims first. If I can find reliable sources to show there was controversy over any of the claims I will alter the Obama section to reflect that.

With the limited sources on the page I could easily strip that whole criticism section down to a few words, but obviously some people don't like WND and I keep thinking they must have some reason... So I will try to find sources for the reason, or I will begin deletion.

By the by I see the Libel Lawsuit section is sourced only to WND and Conwebwatch. CWW is definitely not a reliable source so I think that section will be next, either reliably sourced or removed.Weakopedia (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't think sourcing the "libel lawsuit" is problematical. WND itself documents the incident as have, I believe, several other RS I've encountered. As to ConWebWatch as an RS, my plate is a bit too full to even go near that right now. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:46, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I really should learn to look a bit more before I leap. A few minutes searching seems to indicate that sourcing for the "Libel Lawsuit" is not nearly as prolific as I had previously thought. Besides WND itself (which seems, by far, to be the most "reliable source" a cursory search uncovers), there is a small mention of it in a Huffington Post commentary. It would probably be the height of irony were WND to be the primary source for reportage on its own litigation outcome. --JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone tried adding this again - here is what their source says.

'One of the most popular far-right websites, WorldNetDaily (with 5m readers a month), has argued that Obama’s healthcare reforms appear designed “to create the type of detention centre” that people “fear” could be used as “concentration camps for political dissidents, such as occurred in Nazi Germany”.'

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

All articles need to be approached and addressed with the same, neutral perspective. Personal feelings about the left- or right-wing nature of sites should not steer us into trying to manipulate the article to that effect. -- Avi (talk) 17:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

That was exacly my point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.12.184.141 (talk) 07:39, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

You guys should see the latest post I made...I added a WP:NPOV tag to wherever it claimed WND was Conservative, for as you said, the only sources was the NYT article. --Donatrip (talk) 04:33, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

• The New York Times fails WP:RS? Really? When did this happen? Bollocks, that's what this RFC is. A newspaper, especially one as reputable as the NYT, is a perfectly valid source of information on politics (and indeed, one of the best sources we have for politics-related articles). The Wordsmith^Communicate 04:42, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not questioning the NYT as a whole, just this one article, and just the fact that it was a "blip" in the article! It wasn't even the main topic of the article! It was like saying "Mr. Joe, who owns the store on Main Street, just won a million dollars!". Does it matter in this article? A real source would be an ENTIRE article devoted JUST for the purpose of saying WND is a Conservative news source. Could I find a few words in some off-topic article claiming NYT was a Liberal news source? Probably. So should I go and write that their "View" is Liberal? You tell me. Oh, and notice how I bolded "IN THIS CASE" in the first sentence. Donatrip (talk) 05:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

thats a stretch! good enough reference for the statement, and since your no one is contesting it conservative site a rather stupid argument. Weaponbb7 (talk) 05:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Donatrip, shouting isn't going to make your opinions any more valid. In this case there is absolutely no reason for you to contest the validity of the NYT piece. Additionally WND is mentioned as conservative in publications such as the Washington Post, MSNBC, even France 24. And as Weaponbb77 pointed out to you there is no-one contesting that WND is considered conservative, except you, and the consensus is not that the word needs further citation. I am undoing your assertion of disputed neutrality, though if you find any evidence that shows this matter in a different light please present it. Weakopedia (talk) 05:35, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

BTW you seem to have a misunderstanding of what is necessary to verify material added to this encyclopedia - nowhere on Wikipedia does it say that you need the word of a professor of politics to identify a groups political affiliation, and if you had employed a Google search you could have found out that there are many mainstream publications listing WND as conservative. Weakopedia (talk) 05:46, 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. 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)

If there can reasonably be said to be any doubt as to the reliability of the source then this discussion may be better held at the reliable sources noticeboard or the neutral point of view noticeboard - the RFC isn't likely to clear that up. The NYT is usually considered a reliable source so it's use here is non-controversial, doubts about that reliability would have a wider impact than this article alone and should probably be raised where they would receive the most attention. Weakopedia (talk) 13:21, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

(revised edit made at 3EST) I have decided that since WND is Conservative, I am going to change the NYT to show that they are liberal, using the study made by UCLA. How's that for you? Donatrip (talk) 01:19, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It is POV to call it conservative. Disraeli and Churchill were conservative, this is just backward. The Four Deuces (talk) 04:58, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

No, it would be POV to ignore the fact that WND is called conservative in several sources. The examples you mention are from more than half a century ago yet conservatism outlived them both. If you have information which counters that you would be better discussing it at the conservatism page. Weakopedia (talk) 07:45, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

It's also POV to ignore the sources that say the NYT is liberal...is it not? Donatrip (talk) 01:22, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

They have probably been teaching "advocacy journalism" at Columbia for longer than I would care to remember (or document for that matter). Assuming that to be a valid observation (which is, of course, a dangerous presumption in and of itself around these parts) and currently reflected in the contemporary product of more than a few media sources, it seems both encyclopedic and logical to make note of those characterizations when the ideological base of that "advocacy" is generally recognized (and, in many cases, self-declared). That being said (and as is demonstrated by the short life of your New York Times edit), "encyclopedic and logical" may bear little resemblance to a Wikipedia treatment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:52, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

This is sad but true I suppose...another reason I put a POV on this was because it was said over and over again not to be a WP:RS...and when people come to the page to look the first thing they see is the "conservative" political alignment and just create the assumption that their news is more like conservative blog entries, or columns (like newspaper columns). All I'm asking is for all these articles to be equal in treatment. Apparently, as you said, that is too much to ask on Wikipedia. --Donatrip (talk) 03:03, 17 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)

I am not saying that it isn't conservative, you are right it is, I am saying it is POV to call it conservative when you don't give the documented evidence of other news sources being conservative/liberal. --Donatrip (talk) 03:32, 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 youWeaponbb7 (talk) 03:41, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not coming in irate, I just get a tad bit mad when people still don't understand the point of the POV. It doesn't matter if WND is conservative or not! The fact is, it is POV to call it conservative, while ignoring the other sources that shoe signs of political bias in other news sources as well. It wouldn't be POV to call it conservative, if all the other news outlets got treated the same way this one does. --Donatrip (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

The point of this article tho is to show whether WND is conservative or something else, if that is what is reported in the reliable sources. Again I say to you, the WPost is considered a reliable source for statements like this - considered that by consensus. If you think that consensus was arrived at in error, then the reliable sources noticeboard would be a much better venue for your argument. And, if you think that there are other reliable sources that support or contradict the assertion by the WPost, please list them so we can better work out what needs to be in the article. Weakopedia (talk) 16:16, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments are solicited as to the inclusion of the following text...

On April 13, 2010, WorldNetDaily reported that a "...lawsuit has been filed in Washington accusing the White House Correspondents' Association..." of allegedly failing to designate appropriate 2010 dinner seating accomodations as per an alleged prior arrangement with WorldNetDaily [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=139657].

JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:59, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Um, secondary sources. I raise you a lawsuit filed in a court in Trenton New Jersey. --TS 22:20, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

As cited within the WHCA "Talk", I believe those should be adequate. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

WND has stated that it receives eight million visitors a month to its website.^[1] Quantcast said that WND.com had 33 million monthly visitors, or, about 1 million daily visitors, as of September 2009.^[2] From July 2000 to early 2002, WorldNetDaily offered a service called TalkNetDaily, which provided an Internet audio stream of a daily talk show by then-WND columnist Geoff Metcalf.^[3]

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)

"Quantcast" appears to have some reporting anomaly inre WND. Alexa appears to reflect relatively the same traffic statistics shown by Quantcast before whatever it was that caused the WND downward spike in Quantcast reporting. According to "Quantcast", in early March 2009 WND generated around 2.7M views?/month, actually exceeding that of MSNBC. JakeInJoisey (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Are those views or search results? And is there a way of tying all this together to include in the article, or are the units too difficult to compare? I started by trying to fix the paragraph, rather than delete it or move it here, but it was like comparing apples and oranges with the source material. Weakopedia (talk) 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Are those views or search results?

Views I would assume. The Quantcast "monthly traffic" stats are presentable as either "people" or "visits" per day/week/month (which are proximate anyway). In their sidebar referencing MSNBC, they report that "This site reaches over 2.9 million U.S. monthly people." However, the link to define their terminology is broken and the operation appears to be suffering from hardening of the arteries.

Alexa defines "page views" as...

...the number of pages viewed by site visitors.

My feeling is that Alexa's "people" and Quantcast's "people" both represent "unique" visitors...but I could very well be wrong.

That being said (and believing "Alexa" to be a fairly reputable source), some text quoting (but not defining per se) the traffic statistics would be illuminating and encyclopedic. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:55, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Alexa do seem to be regarded as a reliable source, depending on the ranking of the site in question. Due to their sampling procedures smaller sites have less accurate statistics. 1 is reliable, 100,000 and above completely unreliable, so at 2000 or so WND falls right in the bracket where Alexa are said to be best at providing accurate statistics. Weakopedia (talk) 02:40, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

As you are aware, the subject of Alexa as WP:RS is currently under discussion in WP:RS/N. There has been some additional discussion since your last input and any further thoughts on that topic would be appreciated. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:47, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

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)

Hi, WND used to, I believe, describe itself as a "conservative" site. Nowadays it does more than that by associating with e.g. the "[http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=121028 Birther]" movement, maybe text describing some ideas WND supports would be a descriptive (and easily sourced) way to say that WND is "hard right" (with which I agree). --Dailycare (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

If your proposed additional text has the breadth of RS'ing you suggest, find it, cite it and incorporate it. Simple. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:22, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There. --Dailycare (talk) 22:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I have moved your suggested text from the introduction and incorporated it into the main body. As with much of the remainder of this article, WP:OR issues arise. Can you cite some sourcing suggesting that WND's alleged "association" with an anti-abortion position rises to satisfy WP:UNDUE? JakeInJoisey (talk) 23:08, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm ok with the move and have no strong opinion on exactly where in the article the text should go. I added another source for the anti-abortion view. --Dailycare (talk) 23:52, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

The source you have provided is another from WND. That WND is predominantly conservative in its outlook is self-acknowledged and "pro-life" is generally considered to be a more "conservative" position. How does it improve this article by citing a WND position on an issue that is already a given and where (outside of WND) has their position been the subject of other RS consideration?

I also take issue with the use of "birther" in the descriptive. It is a pejorative term and is decidedly POV. Can you suggest an alternative? JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure I agree either that pro-life and anti-abortion are the same thing, or that conservatism necessarily implies either of them. I selected these two items as shorthand for the "far right" expression which is harder to source. I don't know of a completely non-pejorative expression for the "birther" idea, do you? --Dailycare (talk) 20:16, 2 May 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)

"WND has been described as "far-right" ^{[citation needed]}."

Hi, I frankly don't see a problem with using WND as a source on WND's own views in the WND article. The wording I originally used did attribute the material (also) to Farah, not just WND. Cheers, --Dailycare (talk) 15:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, the problem is not that they have views, it is which views to report here. For that we need the secondary reliable sources - WND have views about all sorts of things, so for us to pick one of the things they have views about and not the others is giving significance to that one view and not the others. When we pick one viewpoint like that without a reliable source talking about why we should, then it is original research - we may not pick ourselves which views to represent, only report what is in the secondary sources we find. Weakopedia (talk) 16:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I would avoid the term far right which normally refers to extremely reactionary groups that reject democracy, e.g., fascists. The term has been gravely overused in the United States, but really adds nothing to the article. we can find sources for example that the Republican Party has been described as far right. TFD (talk) 17:41, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree that "far right" is probably not a good term to use here as a description, if only because there's no clear line between "right" and "far right", and "far right" could be interpreted as pejorative. It would be less problematic if we could say that a particular source has described them as that though. We could include a sentence along the lines of "WorldNetDaily describes itself as 'conservative', but has been described by (Group X) as a far-right news outlet" if we can find a cite from someone reasonably credible making that assertion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:24, 4 May 2010 (UTC).

The 'far-right' bit used to be in the criticism section, but was moved to the description section. If a source was found describing them as far-right it would be most likely of use in the criticism section - I think it would take more than one source to show that they are far-right and include it in their description.

@Lankiveil, there are enough sources describing WND as conservative that it changes slightly the emphasis. We could write something like 'WND has been described as conservative by the media, although some have described them as far-right', rather than WND describe themselves as conservative. My point above is that if there is just one person calling them far-right then that should go in the criticism section, unless maybe it was someone more influential than the sources describing them as conservative. But I agree there is a place for the information if properly sourced. Weakopedia (talk) 12:35, 4 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)

I corrected some of the issues with OR. I don't typically edit wiki pages, but I felt it important to note that many of WND's claims regarding President Obama's eligibility for office have been completely factually erroneous. I replaced some of the "original research" with sources from Factcheck and Mother Jones. We could probably copy and paste significant parts of the "Obama conspiracy theories" page into this section about WND, because much of that page is about claims made by Farah and other WND columnists.

I felt it important to note that many of WND's claims regarding President Obama's eligibility for office have been completely factually erroneous.

Undoubtedly you do, but you need to find a reliable source that has already made that assertion. Under WP:OR (about which you apparently need to become more familiar), you cannot tie disparate sources together to make a new statement of fact that is not attributable to an already existing reliable source. JakeInJoisey (talk) 22:09, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

After checking his/her references, I'm not convinced the user's addition constitutes WP:OR on the basis of "analysis or synthesis by Wikipedians of published material." Synthesis is not forbidden except "where the analysis or synthesis advances a position not advanced by any of the sources." The positions stated were indeed not only advanced by the published sources, but in most cases were the central point of the cited articles. There may be some other basis for judging WP:OR, but no hard feelings, JakeInJoisey -- I'm reverting. Rangergordon (talk) 10:08, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

This is most definitely original research. Original research is not necessarily about putting words in other peoples mouths - the sources cited are fairly represented, the original research part is the attribution of notability to this subject. You should read WP:SYN for the guidelines on this, where it says 'Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.'.

There are two claims here - the first is sourced, to Mother Jones. I don't know if they are considered a reliable source, but what is in this article does represent what they said (minus the bit about Farrah yet to prove otherwise, that has no source). The second part, however, takes a statement from WND and then a statement from Factcheck about 'birthers', and tries to tie the two together in a way that isn't represented by any source. If Factcheck had said 'WND' instead of 'birthers' then we could discuss whether Factcheck is a reliable enough source to establish notability of these claims, but as it is Factcheck didn't mention WND so adding a general criticism they made about 'birthers' is undue synthesis. We shouldn't put words in Factchecks mouth, they are capable of mentioning WND by name if they wish.

I will trim out the synthesis and leave others to the question of notability. Weakopedia (talk) 11:14, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that a "synthesis" is not inherent in what remains and, as you have pointed out, a question of WP:UNDUE naturally follows the juxtaposition of sourcing. It amounts to an argument on an aspect of the birth certificate issue which is more appropriate to Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. WND, after all, doesn't "own" that issue and its position on that issue is already well demonstrated in the section.

As to "Mother Jones", it is a partisan source "rooted in liberal and progressive political values." That "partisan" character, I'd suggest, mandates the provision of additional RS sourcing for anything they might have to offer. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Nicely trimmed, User:Weakopedia. And good catch on the weasel-words, User:JakeInJoisey.

Certainly any reasonable person would grant that Mother Jones (magazine) has a political slant -- just as WND does. So, if MJ is characterized not entirely WP:RS on the basis of its "'partisan' character," then of course the same standard should apply to WND, correct? Rangergordon (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. If Wikipedia is to be truly encyclopedic and something more than a medium for disseminating ideological "spin", I believe that inclusion of content from ANY source widely recognized as "biased" or "partisan" in their offerings should be subject to increased Wikipedia mandates for additional RS just as the increased sourcing for biased content is POLICY-elevated for BLP considerations. That "POLICY" mandate, as I understand it, is to insure that content, if it is to be incorporated from a "biased" source, still has some foundation in "fact" (even "Fact" about "Opinion") and is WIDELY reflected in additional RS sourcing. For proposed content falling under this type of consideration, WP:RS and WP:UNDUE are, even moreso than for accepted WP:RS sourcing, joined at the hip and inseparable.

This "quasi-RS" status, however, has become problematical with the increasing stratification and ideological politicization of just about any subject deemed to be susceptible to such treatment and the proliferation of ideologically inspired media/web entities designed specifically to both explore and exploit those susceptibilities (see "Media Matters", "Newsbusters", "Keith Olbermann", "Sean Hannity" for starters). This has lead to the a propensity for the "coatracking" of inherently biased and trivial, non-encyclopedic content that is so prevalent in these articles today. No answer for that I guess, other than a change in perspective for editors deeply engaged in the dissemination of "spin" and/or those just as engaged in seeing it kept at bay. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:13, 10 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)

While I still have problems with some article content, unless those tags are being actively discussed, I believe they should be removed...as well as the RFC tag within this talk section. JakeInJoisey (talk) 11:45, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Replaced multiple tags with single tag in support of "Dispute" section below. JakeInJoisey (talk) 18:15, 16 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)

The Obama website graphic is a scan of the same document from the Factcheck.org website. They are the exact same documents. The only difference is that the Obama and DailyKos versions are scans, while Factcheck.org presents digital pictures of the document. This all seems like circular logic debating a distinction without a difference. Dave Dial (talk) 19:21, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

The Obama website graphic is a scan of the same document from the Factcheck.org website.

This is irrelevant to the allegation made by Olbermann. The differentiation of the two referenced graphics is both specifically recognized and documented by "FactCheck.org". Farah's purported "lieing" is based upon the erroneous contention that Farah was, again, referencing the FactCheck.org "document" when, in fact, he was addressing a second submission of the Obama Website document "graphic" to Farah's "experts" and...

None of them could report conclusively that the electronic image was authentic or that it was a forgery.

They are refering to the authenticity of the purported graphical representation of the "image" itself, NOT to the authenticity of the document it purports to display. The fact that Farah's expert's observations were legitimate in questioning the authenticity of the "graphic" itself is reinforced, again, by FactCheck.org's own assessment that (emphases mine)...

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.

Farah correctly reported the observations of his "experts" as being unable to authenticate the "image" of the second "Obama Website" document (which prompted FactCheck's OWN investigation (albeit with a different conclusion) and it is evident that Olbermann failed to make the appropriate distinction, either in ignorance or deliberately, between Farah's references to 2 DIFFERENT graphics. JakeInJoisey (talk) 20:30, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I won't get into too much of this silliness, but the full quote from the WND piece is [http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=73214 this]:

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.

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.

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)

You're simply not grasping the issue and are making the same error (or purposeful misrepresentation) as did Olbermann. Farah's reportage on the WND expert's findings inre the "Obama Website" proffered image were referencing the authenticity of the "image" of the document, not the authenticity of the document itself...about which Farah had already concured with FactCheck's proffer of their own image as representing an authentic "DOCUMENT". It simply strains credulity (unless you're woefully uninformed) to suggest that Farah (as Olbermann suggests) would have been unaware or somehow forgotten his prior concurrence with FactCheck's "authentic" assessment. JakeInJoisey (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that the words "woefully uninformed" apply here, but just not in the manner you believe. Dave Dial (talk) 03:55, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

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)

This sounds like unnecessary nitpicking.

Unnecessary "nitpicking"? Olbermann makes absolutely no distinction or even hints at an acknowledgement of the existence of 2 distinct "graphics" and, instead, treats the "FactCheck" graphic as identical to the "Obama Website" graphic. FactCheck themselves found the suggestions of questionable "authenticity" of the Obama Website graphic (not the DOCUMENT itself) plausible enough to warrant their OWN expert examination for authenticity of that "GRAPHIC". Was FactCheck "casting doubt on a copy presented by Obama's own campaign" as well when they conducted their own examination? Their "experts" simply reached (and reported) a more conclusive determination of "graphic authenticity" than did Farah's...and THAT is what Farah reported. In no way did he renege on his concurrence that the "document" itself was "authentic". Olbermann's allegation is simply specious and he even suggests the absurdity of what he erroneously purports Farah to be stating. JakeInJoisey (talk) 04:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Different graphics of the same document? You don't see that as unnecessary nitpicking? Here is a comparison(I keep making these comparisons in the hope that birthers and those that sympathize with their claims will realize the faulty logic), say someone had a picture of an Easy Bake Oven here. Then someone claims the image is not an easy bake oven, that this is an easy bake oven. Some others argue that this is a picture of an easy bake oven. The original person states that yes, those are easy bake ovens, but the others are not made anymore and the original picture is the product that is now made and available. The second person claims there is no incandescent light bulb in the first pictured oven, so it can't be an easy bake oven. The original person states that yes, that is true, the company now uses heating elements to heat the oven and the light bulb version is no longer available. The third person points out that the oven in the first picture is a Hasbro oven, and easy bake ovens are made by Kenner. The original person states that Kenner is now a division of Hasbro and all Kenner products are now Hasbro products, and gives both of the other persons a timeline of the different easy bake ovens, in the hopes both will understand that the ovens look different now and even though some people may have the older version, when you go to a store and ask for an easy bake oven, you get one like the first picture. The second person admits that the first picture is an actual picture of an easy bake oven, but then claims it does not prove that the oven actually exists. The end. Dave Dial (talk) 12:37, 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)

Jake, you're engaging in original research...

I am, indeed, engaging in OR and tried to be upfront about that. Hence, the conundrum I referred to.

...which is leading you to declare that everybody (including Farah) has his facts wrong except you.

Hopefully my observations are persuasive and grounded enough in fact to expand the universe of the better-informed, to include even Farah...whose response to Olbermann's nonsense is only slightly less inexplicable. I'm fairly convinced that Farah spent little time dwelling on the particulars of Olbermann's allegation and simply missed a target of opportunity.

I'm not convinced that this particular material belongs here.

Nor am I, and the question of a WP:UNDUE consideration looms mightily. However, I couldn't imagine even broaching that subject without first addressing the speciousness of Olbermann's rant in the first place. JakeInJoisey (talk) 15:18, 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)

...and I think your quibbling over detail is missing the point that it is of little weight.

I have not missed that point at all...as I so stated in my last comment. However, an argument might still be legitimately made that Olbermann's "quip" might qualify under WP:V based upon its repetition in subsequent "echo chambers"...like "Huffington Post". Assuming that to be so and also assuming my argument to have some merit, we are presented with a situation where something that might arguably be WP:V yet based on a false premise is currently incorporated in this article. Do you believe this content rises to satisfy a WP:V consideration?

Leaving that open question aside (as you appear to favor) and moving directly to a WP:UNDUE consideration, Olbermann's "World's Worst" observations are little more than soundbites of partisan, biased spin, sometimes original, sometimes echoing spin originating elsewhere. Their substantive shelf-life is next-to-nothing and largely unencyclopedic...except for those who want to coatrack Olbermann "World's Worst" quips into every "subject" he might deign to address. I'd suggest this content is POV and it's "notability" as a "criticism" worthy of wikipedia note is not supportable.

As to...

...of more moment to the website is the refusal of at least three major billboard advertisers...

Perhaps so, perhaps not...but I'm puzzled by your insertion of a non-sequitur into this discussion. If you feel it is warranted, construct content that presents it and support it with cites...just like all content. Please don't cloud this designated dispute section with comments on unrelated, non-existent content. JakeInJoisey (talk) 21:45, 18 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)

um what the editor meant by the statement, but the source does not fit the statement being made. Politifact critiques one statement they made as false not everything they report. So i see the IPs problem Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I've been unable to locate nor does "Politi-fact" link to the purported source of the alleged WND "lie". I would be interested in viewing the "source" both for WP:V and context. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Could have just been a summary of an article, but it doesnt matter for our purposes. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Politi-fact states that the alleged WND "lie" appeared in a purported WND advertisement that was hosted by Human Events. Even were a link provided to the alleged "source", I'm unclear how this allegation, single sourced, would rise to satisfy WP:N. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:24, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Jake, its gone from the article Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:30, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm both aware and concur (pending any further comment) in its removal. However, your statement...

...critiques one statement they made as false...

...assumes a fact that hasn't even been established. I just wanted to clarify both that and subsequent WP:N problems were the source for the "lie" even to become available. JakeInJoisey (talk) 00:37, 26 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-wing politics
• Conservatism in the United States

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)

According to Right-wing politics, "In politics, right-wing, rightist and the Right are terms applied to conservative (Conservatism in the United States), and reactionary positions." If you look closely at the definitions, they are virtually the same meaning. But I'm not going to fight for it, it isn't a huge deal. Let's just move on and not create wikidrama. :) TheAE talk/sign 16:07, 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

I removed this section

''WND has claimed it is confirmed that President Obama has spent at least $1.7 million on lawyers defending against requests for his birth certificate.<ref>[<nowiki>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122587 Appeals Court told Obama "Security Risk."], January 20, 2010</ref> This number has been contradicted by Obama's lawyers.^[1]</nowiki>

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 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)

Removal works for me. Even were another source located, it hardly seems crucial to an understanding of WND. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 08:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Dunno whether it makes a difference, but PolitiFact (noted above as a "reliable source") debunked this particular claim a couple of weeks ago when Donald Trump and Sarah Palin tried to revive it. PolitiFact specifically cited an October 2009 article in WND as the original (and only) underlying source for the claims. Basically the dispute appears to be over an unwarranted assumption that every single penny the Obama campaign spent on legal fees must have been connected to litigation involving his birth certificate -- which, according to PolitiFact, it was not. Note, however, that PolitiFact's analysis concludes that WND's original article "has been twisted" by Trump and others, and not that WND itself was wrong. --Shadow (talk) 06:57, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

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)

Then take it to WP:RSN, we don't remove reliable sources just because we don't think they are right. Or find a way of pointing out, without original research, they they no longer publish religious and family values stuff, although from what you say it appears that they still do. Dougweller (talk) 06:14, 7 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)

Agreed. It's not in any way a reliable source (the self-published aspect is the least of it as it appears to be pure opinion). It does aggregate other sources which are reliable so it could be used by editors as a resource to track down information, but not as a source. --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:43, 1 June 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 took a look at it. While, IMHO, notability of this entire section is arguable, assuming the content accurately reflects the sourcing, what would you delete or what would you add? Can you provide an improved alternative either by edit or presentation here? JakeInJoisey (talk) 10:50, 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)

It's sourced. First by the source(NYT) listed before the sentence, which also happens to link to Factcheck.org, which links to several 'investigations' of it's own(1,2,3). But besides all that, the link to the main article is right atop that section "Main article: Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories", where there are plenty of sources indicating this fact. In fact, this is a quote from the article "These arguments have been debunked numerous times by media investigations, every judicial forum that has addressed the matter, and Hawaiian government officials—a consensus of whom have concluded that the certificate released by the Obama campaign is indeed his official birth certificate.³⁶". So it should be noted to not remove the sourced wording, and if someone wants to put a source after the wording, they should do that. Cheers. Dave Dial (talk) 02:12, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Is there any reason to have the inline cite before the sentence it's supporting? Maybe we could move the NYT source to the end of the sentence there. Is there something in the sentence before it that has to be cited to that particular source?— alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 02:26, 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)

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)

I would encourage all interested editors to actually READ the RSN cited above. It's not long at all (especially if you discount the personal attacks directed at me) and see for yourself whether the above assertion actually reflects the clear consensus opinion of that RSN. JakeInJoisey (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

I'll save you the click. The discussion was closed thusly:

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.

Seems pretty black and white to me. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 02:13, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Seems pretty black and white to me.

Perhaps it does. Others don't quite see it that way at all, but rather a WP:RS contextual shade of grey (emphasis mine)...

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.

Again, interested editors can read the RSN commentary for themselves and draw their own conclusion as to the accuracy of your RSN summation. In the interim, you might want to reconsider further undiscussed deletions of stable citations, some of which have been resident in this article for more than 4 years. JakeInJoisey (talk) 02:37, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Um, you're quoting some guy who's opinion was by no means widely held in that discussion. I'm quoting the admin who closed the discussion. I definitely encourage others to review that discussion; it's transparent that you're attempting to push a narrative that has no resemblance to reality. Incidentally, others may also find it notable that you've previously been blocked for disrupting WP:RSN, so I thought I'd mention it here. 24.177.120.138 (talk) 01:06, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

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:

1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

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)

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.

Reserving the right to disagree on the degree of "consensus" you assert (see above quote from the RSN)...

...it (WND content) would be acceptable as long as it adheres to the self-publish guidelines of RS...

WND is not a "self-published" source (and this is, to the best of my recollection, the first time I've seen such a characterization suggested). Therefore, IMHO, the guidelines you suggest are not specifically applicable to an editorial consideration of WND content. Instead (and as has been stated by numerous contributors to prior WND RSNs), ALL edits, regardless of the source, can and should be examined for their contextual appropriateness under WP:RS. That being said, the "self-published" guidelines you suggested are not without merit to any editorial consideration.

Interestingly enough, those "self-published" guidelines appear to preclude the use of "ConWebWatch" (and cousins) as reliable sources for this article, but that's for another discussion entirely. JakeInJoisey (talk) 16:50, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

I have to seriously doubt the good-fath motives of any editor that dedicates so much of their time to list a tabloid as a reliable source. It is hard not to characterize this as a desire to obfuscate consensus for destructive purposes. Flying Hamster (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2012 (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)

(edit conflict) Agreed. And the editor wishing to include it specifically stated that he wasn't adding it as qualifier but to warn readers that the source is "non-NPOV." (Which in itself is a non-NPOV edit). --Loonymonkey (talk) 19:17, 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)

Yep, I agree this isn't necessary in this specific case, the Guardian is well known. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

The claim that WND Books is a "a niche producer of rightwing conspiracy theories, religious books and 'family values' tracts" is demonstrably false. Only a small minority of its titles are about conspiracies and family values. They don't focus on any niche; themes like crime, media bias, islam, global warming, immigration, free speech, small government, radicalism, Middle East and others indicate a broad assortment. WP isn't exactly improved by misleading readers about what kind of books WND publishes. I'm generous when I accept the quote with a qualification - maybe I shouldn't do that. What can be said in defense of it is, that it gives a few examples of themes that WND favors. Readers, however, need to be heedful of the polemical nature of the quote, which the qualification "liberal" may indicate. Giving a picture of the source as disinterested when it displays a clear bias is non-NPOV.

As the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, I remove the quote. --Jonund (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And I've restored it. At least 4 editors are happy with it, and Wikipedia is not making any claim - the statement is clearly attributed. That's all we need. You can go to WP:NPOVN if you wish, but to try to force it in this way is heading towards edit warring. Dougweller (talk) 18:36, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

At least two editors are not happy with it. There is no consensus. --Jonund (talk) 18:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Five. It seems like a reasonable, accurate assessment from a reliable source that is appropriately placed. Gamaliel (talk) 18:48, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

And a post over 2 years old from someone who is no longer editing is irrelevant. We don't count old posts in a discussion such as this one. Dougweller (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

If I haven't been counted yet, I also support the inclusion of the statement as another editor who tweaked this article recently. Six then? --Sigeng (talk) 21:07, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Ckrushke also opposed it and removed it, so even if we don't count an old post, there are two dissenters. In other words, there is no consensus. If you are committed to improving the article, you should not accept a false statement and stickle to the letter of the law in order to keep it. That's against one of WP:s policies --Jonund (talk) 15:27, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ckrushke didn't remove the statement. And consensus doesn't mean unanimous. There is no false statement, there is an attributed opinion, very different. Dougweller (talk) 15:53, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I remembered wrong. Ckrushke wanted the qualifier inserted. He noticed the bias of the quote. It's clearly false to claim that WND is a niche producer when they have a broad assortment. --Jonund (talk) 15:08, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Clearly false? It's an opinion published in a reputable source, and your argument against it is unpublished original research until you provide a reliable published secondary source saying that WND is not a niche producer when they have a broad assortment [presumably of far right conspiracy theories]. As for the Graun being Liberal, that's rather an insult these days: the paper is sensibly no supporter of the despicable ConDem coalition, and so is mainstream rather than right wing like the Liberals. dave souza, talk 16:07, 3 December 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)

Actually I "didn't want the qualifier inserted" (i.e. the liberal The Guardian), I disagreed with removing it as IMO the qualifier "liberal" is legitimate just as describing Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al, as "conservative radio hosts" is also legitimate, IMO. However, I'm not bent out of shape with it's removal - Doug has shown me that many of my opinions are simply that.

As far as the section/sentence Jonund wants removed (i.e. The Guardian panning WND as a hack organization), I have no opinion on that so please don't throw around what I do and don't agree with. Ckruschke (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

OK, I misunderstood you, Ckruschke. Excuse me!

The broad assortment can easily be seen by checking a list of their books.

Liberal is commonly understood as left-wing, even though it can have other meanings, too.

A niche market is the subset of the market on which a specific product is focusing - a specialized market - not something that covers a vast array of subjects. --Jonund (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The idea that a website that is a niche producer (the word 'market' isn't in the quote, that's a red herring) must make sure it doesn't a broad range of subjects is something I can't get my head around. But this is completely irrelevant. It's an RS and is attributed, this really is getting tendentious. Dougweller (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

More could be said, but there seems to be little interest in listening, so I won't continue the discussion. Jonund (talk) 18:53, 6 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)

WP:NOTAFORUM. Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

• hand-picked contributors from the fringes of the far-right and fundamentalist worlds
• a reporter for the far-right World Net Daily
• further out on the fringe such as World Net Daily
• Far-right Web sites like World Net Daily

and more

• Big news this week from WorldNetDaily, America's pre-eminent source of far-right fringe theories and weird scams
• World Net Daily, a far-right webzine
• a conspiracist webstie

etc. etc.

Please stop removing text based on reliable sources. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm unsure to what this refers, but descriptors should be handled carefully - perhaps contrasting official self-descriptions with other sources' descriptions where appropriate. I believe we need to be careful not to write in Wikipedia's voice for controversial claims. Mrtea (talk) 18:14, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

It depends on how widely a description is used in reliable sources, which here it's pretty comment. And yes we can say "it describes itself as such and such, but has been referred to as xyz by independent sources". Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Suggest you stop reverting and bring in outside parties for discussion, Volunteer Marek. Mrtea (talk) 18:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Outside parties are welcome. Discussion is welcome. But did you notice I'm the only one trying to discuss this? Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:30, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: My reply above was intended to suggest you follow the Wikipedia policy on dispute resolution. On that policy page you can find links to request third-party opinions, comments, etc. You may not be familiar with the policy on edit warring, (which is what appears to me to be happening here.) I suggest you stop making edits to the article about this and follow the suggestions in the dispute resolution policy instead. --Mrtea (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Mrtea, I'm perfectly aware of dispute resolution. That's why I started this talk page discussion. Unlike the other user who only reverted. Also, please note that the other user just got blocked for following my edits around and making revenge reverts. So that's what was going on here. The guy below was going around engaging in WP:STALKING and WP:HARASSMENT. Not exactly sure how I'm suppose to discuss something with someone who's doing that. Anyway, they got justifiably blocked

Now, if you have a suggestion about the content, I'm all ears. Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:36, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

even silly blogs like huffington post call it conservative. stop making POV edits everyplace http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/carl-gallups-donald-trump_us_56e028f9e4b0860f99d740ac KMilos (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There's seven sources right above, or did you not notice? We can say both as a compromise - "which has been described as conservative [sources] or far-right [sources]". And thanks for finally coming to the talk page. Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

you can see i added 8 source to article. there are 10 sources there that say conservative. and little huffington blog i added just infront you is another. also i told you to take to talk section about your POV edits but you undid multiple times before that.. thanks for listening now KMilos (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

KMilos, so how about the compromise version where we mention both? And yes, I've noticed that you've been copy/pasting my edit summary as if it was your own into all your revenge reverts and I've asked you to stop doing that. Volunteer Marek (talk) 19:16, 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)

Based on the sources provided, I disagree with that suggestion/compromise. As of this writing, the current iteration of the article is Volunteer Marek's edit consisting of a variation of that. This has been reverted back and forth several times. The four sources used casually label WND as "fringe" and "far-right" and are not strong enough reliable sources to conclude that they represent a majority view:

• hand-picked contributors from the fringes of the far-right and fundamentalist worlds

SPLC hate group designations are controversial.

• a reporter for the far-right World Net Daily

In this source the Washington Post refers to Lester Kinsolving writing for WND. His Wikipedia article seems to indicate past bad blood between him and Washington Post which may suggest possible conflict of interest.

• Far-right Web sites like World Net Daily

This is listed on the publisher's website as an "essay" and it reads like an opinion piece so I infer that's what it is. It makes it somewhat less reliable.

• further out on the fringe such as World Net Daily

This is another opinion piece.

I disagree that the fringe/alt-right labels are so mainstream that they belong in the first sentence of the article. --Mrtea (talk) 03:55, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I also disagree that the label "fringe" is mainstream and I ask that editors respect the discussion and keep long term stable wording of the first sentence of the lead until we can reach a compromise. I reverted to the stable version. Maybe we need an RfC? Lipsquid (talk) 04:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Uh, I tried to have a compromise wording but you reverted it. How can we "reach a compromise" if you just revert to your preferred version? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:35, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Mrtea, you can't just dismiss sources on flimsy pretexts. Of course some of these are going to be opinions pieces. So are the sources which call it "conservative". In particular

1. We are not calling WorldNetDaily a "hate group" and neither is SPLC so it's irrelevant of whether their designations of some OTHER groups as "hate groups" is "controversial" (it depends on your definition of "controversial" I guess)

2. Washington Post is a perfectly reliable source and I don't see what supposed "bad blood" has to do with anything. Just because they caught him years ago for some shenanigans, doesn't make what they say about WND right now any less reliable. *Maybe* if the tables were turned, you'd have a point. But not here

3. This is the Columbia Journalism Review - since they, like, review journalisms, their "opinion" of the nature of WND is quite relevant.

4. So it's an opinion piece? So what? We're looking for how WND is described in reliable sources. That includes this one.

5. I listed 3 additional sources above and I could keep going but seriously if any and all sources will just be dismissed out of hand why should I bother? Like Hoary says, we've got a pretty straight forward way to compromise here, by listing and sourcing both designations, so why not do that? Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:43, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

My sentiments exactly. Seems to be a clear case of WP:IDLI.--Galassi (talk) 04:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Other sources for the description "far right" include this, this, this, this and this. -- Hoary (talk) 05:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I was simply commenting that the references you used were not very strong reliable sources. Opinion pieces can still be acceptable but should be used with caution. See WP:NEWSBLOG for the rationale. If you have better sources, perhaps you should use those instead. --Mrtea (talk) 15:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I have an issue with calling a site that primarily aggregates news from other non-fringe sites, fringe, because some of the articles are not mainstream. If having articles that do not follow mainstream beliefs were all fringe every news site would be fringe as everyone has printed a birther article. But I am not on a one man crusade. I will leave the compromise edit and see if others have interest in the article in the future. I have self-reverted to consensus. Best wishes, Lipsquid (talk) 06:23, 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)

Proustfala, this talk page is for discussing improvements to the associated article and not for discussing WND's reliability as a Wikipedia source. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely that a new editor will know what the Teahouse is, how to find it, or how to locate your answer there. Fwiw. Cerberus (talk) 20:58, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

See User talk:Proustfala#Proustfala, you are invited to the Teahouse! Of course the new editor may have ignored that. . . dave souza, talk 23:15, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

But no! They started a discussion, subsequently archived. . . dave souza, talk 23:29, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Besides the deleted Chicago Tribune source, I found . Doug Weller talk 10:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that it is labeled as conservative. Is an organization that is often described as "far right" really conservative? How about describing it as "reactionary"? To illustrate the difference, the phrase "make our society (something) again" (to paraphrase a recent slogan expressing a desire to return to a previous political state of a society) is reactionary in nature, whereas "keep our society (something)" (a slogan expressing a desire to maintain the status quo) is conservative in nature, even though they don't always seem so. WND might be reactionary on some topics and conservative on others, but that can't be defined by the unmodified term "conservative." Jack N. Stock (talk) 17:25, 25 March 2018 (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. They are virtually always self-serving. As the saying goes, "actions speak louder than words". Doug Weller talk 10:05, 28 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. Argue your case there. Where are your reliable independent sources about the news stories you mention? Doug Weller talk 08:53, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Christian B Martin, Mission statements do not belong (see WP:MISSION). Remove on sight. Guy (help!) 23:07, 26 July 2020 (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)

The specific reason we can use Media Matters' description of themselves as progressive and not the mission statement you're citing is because of the requirements of WP:ABOUTSELF, which forbid us from using a source to cite anything about themselves that is "unduly self-serving". Progressive is a relatively neutral descriptor of Media Matters' politics (in fact, it is very likely that editors went for a primary source because they wanted to forestall people on the left arguing that Media Matters was unbiased by making it clear that that was how the organization described itself), while the mission statement is also cited to a secondary source; the quote you're describing is obviously much more self-serving. That said, it's hardly difficult to find secondary sources describing Media Matters as progressive, so I added one to that page. Also, I would generally say that comparing the treatment of ideologically-opposed groups is not a useful way to judge articles; we are required to cover topics neutrally according to what mainstream sources say. If those sources (for instance) make Media Matters sound better than WND, it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE for us to try and put our thumb on the scales and "correct" that. --Aquillion (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

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)

AnonMoos, WND should not be used for anything. It is deprecated because it is unreliable. The tags are there to invite people to replace them with a better source. If that doesn't happen, the content can be removed. Guy (help!) 23:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I realize that WorldNetDaily is deeply worthless on politics, but I don't understand why it would be an exception to the usual "Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves" rule (scan down to subsection 3.3. of WP:RS). AnonMoos (talk) 21:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

AnonMoos, get it down to one or two self-sourced links and we can talk. Right now about a quarter of the sources are WND. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:22, 5 August 2020 (UTC)