Talk:WorldNetDaily

In this edit I've removed some fact-tagged taxt from the article, to wit: "... , even though Obama's campaign already posted it on its' website and a hard copy of the document is sealed by state law." This is {{fact}} tagged. The document posted online was a "Certificatation of Live Birth" (COLB), not a "Certificate of Birth" (COB). There are differences between these types of documents which have been discussed elsewhere ad nauseum. Rather than open up yet another discussion here about COLBs vs. COBs, I've removed the bit I've quoted above. The removed text appears to me to be incidental to the point of the paragraph

I propose reworking the sections as follows:

• Description
• History
  • Origins (from History)
  • Libel Lawsuit
  • 9/11 (from Controversies)
  • Standing Committee of Correspondents (from History)
  • Obama citizenship
  • Homocon
  • Neil Patrick Harris
• WND Products
• References

The goal is to eliminate what is essentially a criticism section and fold it into their history. Also, the description is more pertinent information than trivial about its founder and origins and should take precedence. Thoughts?

Joe Farrah should sue Wikipedia for deformation and then we can have a judge decide if this article is nothing but opinionated libel and slander, which it is. Words like "far-right" and "fake news" are OPINION! Case closed -Jf (talk) 02:26, 16 November 2022 (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)

There are several contributors that wants to add corroborated material to this page that has been blocked doing so solely based on non-fact based arguments from @Doug Weller, @Mvbaron, @Dronebogus, @XenonNSMB and others, referring Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Now, do not get me wrong, I am still waiting to get factual arguments but only procedural arguments have been presented. I expected the experienced editors to behave according to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Follow the normal protocol, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Five pillars but the only reply that came was stone-walling in terms of do not answer the argument. So this post is a request for help to get some upvotes and a motivated group of editors that is not biased in a certain area and indeed can balance efforts to silence edits on this page.

You who are an editor/administrator who disagree with me, are of course are tempted to propose a sanction for bringing this argument up, but before doing so, remember that Wikipedia:Five pillars argues for neutral point of view, and many points brought to this article including the first statement definitely begs for a POV tag which was also removed by @Doug Weller without motivation. I have in replies to @Doug Weller, @Mvbaron, @Dronebogus asked for motivations, but it is absent. I have thoroughly examined Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Five_pillars, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Five pillars of evil and they all point to civility and politeness and the first thing to ask for is a sound and factual argument, not a procedural argument that is common in court of law to toss the case altogether. I trust that the majority of wikipedia admins and editors does not stand behind such behavior. This post is a test to see if Wikipedia live up to its Wikipedia:Dispute resolution#Follow the normal protocol.

One fact that was deleted today was that google.com have biased search hit against wnd.com and put out a false warning on its search result: https://www.google.com/interstitial?url=https://www.wnd.com/. When you click the details of the warning content: https://transparencyreport.google.com/safe-browsing/search?url=https:%2F%2Fwww.wnd.com%2F&hl=sv it says: "No unsafe content found". Obviously a strong bias from google against wnd.com in the form of false-negative. Similair search engines such as bing, duckduckgo, or brave does not behave in such false-negative way. If anyone has any better understanding of Wikipedia:Reliable sources, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, Wikipedia:No original research, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Five_pillars please educate me and tell why the google source does not conform to Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Look forward to a polite reply.

- Kindly @Edotor (talk) 20:32, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

You aren’t getting that this is about WP:OR, WP:SYNTH, WP:GREATWRONGS and WP:verifiability, not truth. Primary sources from Google indicate nothing other than a false positive. This is not notable info. You should think about the fact that more than four established editors have repeatedly denied your requests. Please stop. Dronebogus (talk) 06:25, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Edotor for starting this talk page thread. Please stop trying to insert material you support against consensus. This is disruptive. Please add me to the list of established editors who would potentially deny such requests. User:Dronebogus is entirely correct that a reasonable sample of wikipedians would refuse to accept Edotor's assertions, likely because such assertions contain original research (they performed the Gsearches themselves) and synthesis (they have concluded that based on their research, bias is seen). Plus, it's sort of a lame way of indicting a source; there are lots of reasons for false positives and false negatives per GIGO. For the record, the normal protocol on Wikipedia is bold, revert, discuss. We appreciate your boldness, truly, Edotor. You've proved to our satisfaction you are a bold contributor. A good place to start. However, based on the page history here, you've attempted to insert and re-insert the same material over and over (edit warring) before finally deciding to discuss. We appreciate your discussing. You'd be more successful trying to make suggested edits here in talk space and asking for feedback. If your assertions can be verified with citation from reliable sources, I can say at least five wikipedians would be interested in seeing such a case well-made. Your attempts so far have not seemed impressive or even serious. BusterD (talk) 07:56, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I read the editoral rules after @Doug Weller pointed it out, so it was a lame start from my side, which caught unnecessary attention to not follow due process and fell I short on that one obviously. Apologies for that one. I learned a lot after reading sanction history. - Edotor (talk) 08:11, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

If you are comfortable going back to the topic, so referring to a primary source of evidence like the google link is not wikipedia Wikipedia:Reliable sources compliant but instead using secondary sources that makes the assertion and brings the evidence is wikipedia compliant, all references below are secondary, but have a great variation of journalistic/academic credibility:

1) https://ussanews.com/2022/08/31/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth/ OR

2) https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/big-tech-ramps-purge-truth-google-just-removed-world-net-daily-first-online-conservative-news-site-search-engine-look-happens-click-wnd-googles-sea/ OR

3) https://politicom.com.au/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth-google-just-removed-world-net-daily-the-first-online-conservative-news-site-from-its-search-engine-look-what-happens-when-you-click-on-wnd-from-google/ OR

4) https://dailyangle.com/articles/google-s-kill-shot-against-wnd OR

5) https://www.therighting.com/daily-news-stream/2022/8/31/google-falsely-warns-readers-that-wnd-may-harm-your-computer OR

6) https://rightedition.com/2022/08/31/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth/ OR

7) https://newspluslife.com/2022/09/google-falsely-warns-readers-wnd-may-harm-your-computer/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=google-falsely-warns-readers-wnd-may-harm-your-computer OR

8) https://olivetreeviews.org/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth-google-just-removed-world-net-daily-the-first-online-conservative-news-site/ OR

9) https://thekingofstocks.com/2022/08/31/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth-google-just-removed-world-net-daily-the-first-online-conservative-news-site-from-its-search-engine-look-what-happens-when-you-click-on-wnd-from-google/

10) https://survivalmagazine.org/news/big-tech-ramps-up-purge-of-the-truth-google-just-removed-world-net-daily-the-first-online-conservative-news-site-from-its-search-engine-look-what-happens-when-you-click-on-wnd-from-google/

11) https://marvelmedia.org/westpacific/archives/8429

Concerning above, when there are quite a few sources that points out a specific claim, how many of those are needed to make the claim credible? In the case above sources are claiming google.com are blocking wnd.com in an unknown attempt of decreasing wnd.com's credibility without explanation, and there is lot written about that which is another topic. Why this is relevant is because Googles is using its "monopoly" position to execute a censoring-like practice. So if all above sources would be considered less credible is that an argument to avoid highlighting a "monopoly-size"-company that tries to take down another one? Should that fight which is highly relevant to the current media landscape and meaningful for a majority of readers of both opposing wnd.com and consumers thereof and really affects the presence of wnd.com not be yet published on Wikipedia? If not now what would be an appropriate quarantine time before it can considered "safe" to add to this article? If never what is the argument?

After carefully reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources I have not been able to conclude what above situation falls under.

-

A guiding clarification on wikipedia stand-point on above would be highly appreciated. (And thank you everyone for feedback on my additions.)

Edotor (talk) 10:33, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

None of the sources you listed are reliable:

1. USSA News's article is republished from The Gateway Pundit. See #2. Syndicated sources are evaluated by the reliability of its original publisher. Additionally, a site that syndicates content from another fake news website is also a questionable source.
2. The Gateway Pundit is a fake news website that was deprecated in a 2019 request for comment.
3. Politicom's article is republished from The Gateway Pundit. See #2.
4. DailyAngle's article is republished from WorldNetDaily. WorldNetDaily was deprecated in a 2018 request for comment due to its particularly poor reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
5. TheRighting's article is republished from WorldNetDaily. See #5.
6. Right Edition's article is republished from The Gateway Pundit. See #2.
7. NewsPlusLife's article is republished from WorldNetDaily. See #5.
8. Olive Tree Ministries' article is republished from The Gateway Pundit. See #2.
9. The King of Stocks' article is republished from WorldNetDaily. See #5.
10. Survival Magazine's article is republished from The Gateway Pundit. See #2.
11. Marvel Media's article is republished from WorldNetDaily. See #5.

— Newslinger talk 11:45, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank u for the quick reply, very insightful response, does that mean that the event has not taken place? Or that they are lying in this particular case or something else? Edotor (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

No, the sources being questionable does not imply that the Google Safe Browsing warning never appeared. However, it means that the claim of the malware warning being an intentional "purge" of WorldNetDaily lacks the reliable sourcing required to be included in a Wikipedia article. As the verifiability policy states, "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research." and "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists, and captions, must be verifiable." — Newslinger talk 12:14, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank u for the quick reply @Newslinger Edotor (talk) 12:32, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

@Newslinger Thanks, you beat me to it. I was looking at this coming back from hospital prehabilitation for my next cancer surgery and I'm pleased you saved me the effort. Doug Weller talk 13:21, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

I hope you’re doing okay! Dronebogus (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

​No problem, and all the best with your surgery. — Newslinger talk 23:00, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Hope that the surgery turns out very well Edotor (talk) 08:46, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

@Edotor You clearly don't understand the results of your Google links. They mean that Google has not detected any malware/viruses at the site, that's all. No one has suggested that linking to the site might damage your computer. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/inside-the-spectacular-fall-of-the-granddaddy-of-right-wing-conspiracy-sites/2019/04/02/6ac53122-3ba6-11e9-a06c-3ec8ed509d15_story.html Inside the spectacular fall of the granddaddy of right-wing conspiracy sites] and [1]. Doug Weller talk 13:29, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Very sad situation, I understand your concerns Edotor (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Google Search results for wnd.com redirect to a Malware Warning page with: "Warning — visiting this web site may harm your computer!".<ref>{{cite web |title=Malware Warning |url=https://www.google.com/interstitial?url=https://www.wnd.com/ |website=www.google.com |access-date=1 September 2022}}</ref>

User:Newslinger falsely claims this addition is WP:OR, yet it is cited, (I did not archive it), but now I get " 403. That’s an error." ...the googlebot noticed .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 04:41, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Look, you need a (reliable) source, such as a newspaper or similar, to write about this - not just your research. Mvbaron (talk) 06:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

As WP:OR states, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." I reverted your edit (Special:Diff/1108022969) after verifying that the link you cited led to a 403 error page, which made your edit unverifiable. Please verify your source before accusing others of making false claims.

Additionally, using a primary source in the manner that was done in Special:Diff/1108022969 to notate a temporary Google Safe Browsing warning constitutes undue weight. Google Safe Browsing flags and unflags many websites every day, and in the absence of reliable secondary source coverage, it is not noteworthy to mention in a Wikipedia article that a particular site is flagged. — Newslinger talk 06:38, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

No one has said. Doug Weller talk 10:19, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

The editors who hover over this article may not agree with the editorial stance of WND but it is not a fake news website. The article's false, libelous, biased description of it as a fake news website should be removed immediately in accordance with long-established Wikipedia policy. 2601:147:C400:1BE0:75EF:6A26:B6A8:1312 (talk) 23:55, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. M.Bitton (talk) 00:00, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

The fake news website descriptor (previously removed in Special:Diff/1194854759) should be restored to the first sentence and the infobox. Reliable sources, including high-quality academic sources, agree that WorldNetDaily is a fake news website. Some of these sources include:

1. Grinberg, Nir; Joseph, Kenneth; Friedland, Lisa; Swire-Thompson, Briony; Lazer, David (2019-01-25). "Fake news on Twitter during the 2016 U.S. presidential election". Science. 363 (6425): 374–378. Bibcode:2019Sci...363..374G. doi:10.1126/science.aau2706. ISSN 0036-8075. PMID 30679368. S2CID 59248491.
2. Owen, Laura Hazard (October 26, 2020). "Older people and Republicans are most likely to share Covid-19 stories from fake news sites on Twitter". Nieman Lab.
3. Ognyanova, Katherine; Lazer, David; Robertson, Ronald E.; Wilson, Christo (2020-06-02). "Misinformation in action: Fake news exposure is linked to lower trust in media, higher trust in government when your side is in power" (PDF). Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review: 18. doi:10.37016/mr-2020-024. S2CID 219904597.
4. Guess, Andrew; Aslett, Kevin; Tucker, Joshua; Bonneau, Richard; Nagler, Jonathan (2021-04-26). "Cracking Open the News Feed: Exploring What U.S. Facebook Users See and Share with Large-Scale Platform Data". Journal of Quantitative Description: Digital Media. 1. University of Zurich: 1–48. doi:10.51685/jqd.2021.006. ISSN 2673-8813.
5. Osmundsen, Mathias; Bor, Alexander; Vahlstrup, Peter Bjerregaard; Bechmann, Anja; Petersen, Michael Bang (May 7, 2021). "Partisan Polarization Is the Primary Psychological Motivation behind Political Fake News Sharing on Twitter". American Political Science Review. 115 (3). Cambridge University Press: 999–1015. doi:10.1017/S0003055421000290. ISSN 0003-0554. S2CID 235527523.

Per WP:NPOV, neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and there is little to no disagreement among reliable sources that the fake news website descriptor is applicable to WorldNetDaily. Therefore, the descriptor should be restored. (Please note that WorldNetDaily is already listed in List of fake news websites.) — Newslinger talk 07:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

But that implies that every news published there is fake, which is wrong, it makes it sound like its The Onion. Thats why i initially removed it. Plus it already says the site is known for promoting fake news, what more do you even want? Note that this was also the longstanding version till at least July 2022 https:https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/index.php?lang=en&q=WorldNetDaily&oldid=1101321323 --FMSky (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

A website does not have to exclusively publish fake news to be a fake news website; even InfoWars – perhaps the most widely known fake news website – does not meet that bar. Per our article on the topic, fake news websites "are websites on the Internet that deliberately publish fake news—hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation purporting to be real news—often using social media to drive web traffic and amplify their effect". WorldNetDaily's publication of hoaxes and conspiracy theories is well-documented. That, paired with reliable sources agreeing that WND is a fake news website, is sufficient to justify the fake news website descriptor. — Newslinger talk 07:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

But it heavily implies it, even when Wikipedia's own definition says otherwise. I'm not convicted that this is an improvement over the current (and longest-standing) version, as most readers will inevitably get confused --FMSky (talk) 07:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that most readers will be confused by calling a site that publishes fake news a "fake news website"? If not, I'm more inclined to use the terms used by published RSes. —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Great that you found this discussion on a site you've never visited before by going through my edit history. As for the question, its just common sense. Use a term thats less ambiguous and actually informative --FMSky (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I disagree that it is "common sense" that readers will believe the term fake news website to mean that "every news published there is fake" without exception. I cannot find a single reliable source that supports that definition. Such a definition would imply that any website that publishes just one truthful article would not be a fake news website, even if every other article on the site were a hoax, which is not a particularly reasonable interpretation of the term. Most readers are intelligent enough to understand that fake news websites do not need to exclusively contain fake news, and any reader can click on the link to the article Fake news website to confirm the correct definition for themselves and to learn more about fake news websites in general. — Newslinger talk 20:25, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I think just saying the website is known for fake news is more accurate and more easily understandble --FMSky (talk) 20:30, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that unnecessarily verbose? Using the "fake news website" descriptor simplifies the lead, and as @Newslinger pointed out, multiple sources have described it as such. Isi96 (talk) 08:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, plenty of Wiki articles use the "fake news website" descriptor, such as Palmer Report, The Gateway Pundit, Natural News, etc., and they also are they're sourced to citation bundles, which include some of the same sources used in this article itself. Isi96 (talk) 08:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Based on the discussion above, it seems like there is consensus to use the descriptor fake news website in the first sentence and the infobox, but I am not entirely sure because some of the comments were phrased as questions. Sangdeboeuf and Isi96, could you please clarify whether you support changing the first sentence and the infobox to explicitly describe WorldNetDaily as a "fake news website"? — Newslinger talk 20:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC) Corrected spelling — Newslinger talk 21:16, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Newslinger I support the change. Isi96 (talk) 20:54, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

The current wording is clear enough. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 21:17, 26 April 2024 (UTC)