Talk:Weekly World News

message: Can anyone confirm that WWN is a contender for the Pulitzer?  I was gonna erase that but decided to ask first. -redundancy
Whnoever updated the page cannot write in the English language. All the
updated material consists of mangled and often incomprehensible gibberish.128.83.131.92 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: How are the three photos captioned "The first/second/third of three possible future cover [sic] of the Weekly World News" encyclopedic?  WWN might spout unmitigated crap, but that doesn't mean we have to when talking about them.  If they're covers that have appeared, we should say so, but if they're "possible future" covers, than this is like listing all 250 million US citizens and describing each of them as a "possible future" US president.  How absurd is that!  Anyway, "cover" should be "covers".  JackofOz 01:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If these have not appeared, what is their copyright status? --Wetman 13:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible future covers!???

message: I remember hearing that the reason the WWN uses a B&W press is that it was the old press used by the National Enquirer.  The WWN lauched in 1979, so that may be the case.  Since I'm not certain, I'm not adding it to the article.  Bobak 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation to Nat'l Enquirer 

message: The Elvis section seems to be portrayed as being accurate, as well as some other sections.  All things considered, that should probably be rectified. 141.149.206.197 19:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: Someone vandalized one point in mentioning "Miss Adventure" and replaced it with "Miss America."  --71.109.37.168 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fixed it.  And if someone is going to vandalize, they could a least check their vandalism for spelling! I also made some minor related corrections, the article could use a lot of editing.65.6.15.68 14:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm not even bothering with it, but... 

message: It would be tempting to add that unlike The Sun's Page Three girl, WWN's Page 5 girl is usually...well...you know...kind of a skank, doubtless a deliberate parody of Page Three. 65.6.15.68 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page 5 Girl 

message: Does anybody believe this crap? 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Um...no.  But it's still fun.  Seems the paper has become a parody of itself since the recent changes, though. 65.6.4.7 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just Wondering 

message: Although it was I who is largely responsible for this page being expanded into the matter it currently is now, in the wake of the announcement that the publication is coming to an end, I think now is as good a time as any for this article to be completely overhauled and cleaned up. It is rather jumbled and uninformative in its current state, but could make a very good article if someone with more knowledge and skill then I have wished to undertake it.Spman 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I do have a rather large collection (perhaps the largest collection [I am currently seeking a position in Guinness) of the Weekly World News. Here's a question, what if we developed a wikiproject for WWN? It certainly would make our goals more defined - having such an outline will be rather helpful. --76.226.23.155 (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Overhaul

message: "Suspended"? Does that mean that this is only temporary? Scorpionman 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shutting down 

message: I noticed that the Reuters news service has been stating that the WWN would continue its online edition, despite what the source one of you cited was saying. 68.36.214.143 23:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In point, someone had added a cite that referred to that Reuters article, but it was muddled, with people leaving in information that may or may not have superceded it (I can't find either supposed statement, just coverage of it). I've straightened things out, and added a 'current event' tag, in the hopes people will pay attention to the whole of the article when adding new information that may override or contradict other info. Also remember, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia *you* can edit. If you see something, especially in a current story that hasn't been changed, please change it! you can't break it, and we're happy to see new people make an edit or two! --Thespian 04:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aren't they continuing the online edition? 

message: :Image:Batchild.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Batchild.jpg

message: Could you include somewhere in the first sentences that this Magazine is about jokes or comedy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.11.38.122 (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentences issue 

message: ...but is this magazine serious? Do people believe it, or is it deliberately nonsense? The article doesn't really say; it should be made clear from the start. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the Washington Post article listed at the bottom, some of it was just "weird news", some of it was actual news but embellished, and some of it was just made up.  As time went on, it became increasingly fictional.  That's consistent with my recollection of it.  Too bad it's gone; it was pretty darn funny.  I used to have the "Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby" issue; I wish I could find another copy.  Afalbrig (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just for the record: "Do people believe it, or is it deliberately nonsense?" is EXACTLY the question the editors wanted readers to ask. WWN existed in that liminal space between fact and fiction. Had at least a bit of both. After 2000, when AMI consolidated all America's tabloids into one company, WWN was given legal review by the same team that oversaw Enquirer stories... and that ensured Sun was a "risk-free" publication after the 1992 defamation & libel lawsuit. grant 15:28, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sorry if this is just me being stupid... 

message: I really don't see an in-universe style in here. Even the example given in the edit summary that replaced the tag is not in-universe. What's up? Hairhorn (talk) 22:09, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  "in-universe" tag 

message: Though rare, WWN did on occasion carry serious articles; Some were related to lifestyle (such as staffwriter generated articles on marriage) others actual news; One such was on Necrotizing fasciitis. These (very) rare jems should be acknowledged in some fashion. (A simple version might be to copy the relevant portions of this section and paste them to the page itself).Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Serious, or at least real, stories weren't rare. The article says that "on occasion" Weekly World News published strange-but-true stories, but those were exceptions. I disagree. I always enjoyed reading the paper and trying to figure out which of the stories and articles in it were entirely made up by WWN staffers, and which were factual (though strange). I'd say at least a quarter to a third of the stories in each paper were factual, or at least printed from real newspapers elsewhere. - Embram (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Serious Articles

message: WWN is a satire website or just a farcical website that takes itself seriously? If it's satire, should it be mentioned in the article? 122.175.8.235 (talk) 06:53, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Satire or not?