Talk:WorldNetDaily/Archive 1

message: Any objections to me moving the content from World Net Daily here and making World Net Daily into a redirect to WorldNetDaily?
--RobbieFal 02:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combination 

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

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

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

message: In early 2006 WND ran an article alleging that the Trilateral Commission, Bilderberg Group and the Council on Foreign Relations were involved in a conspiracy with "centuries old secret societies" to subvert the United States to one world religion and government.
Comment: this is false.  The said "article" is actually a book offering.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.70.139 (talk • contribs) 
:Well, in the article WND does not dispute the book's claims as it offers it for sale. WND claims, "You may not accept everything Monteith offers, but one thing is for sure: After reading "Brotherhood of Darkness," you will never look at the world in the same way again." Arbusto 22:33, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed: One World Government 

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

message: I think that the definition of a "blog" does not apply to WND.  WND is way above that.  It is an independent virtual newspaper with journalistic standards and many different writers, including some stationed in news hotspots like the Middle East, for example.  I want to edit out the assertion that WND is a blog because it is a website of much higher standing than any blog one might name.  Any objections?  74.102.58.135 02:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you.  (And you should totally get a username, yo.)  Kc8ukw 03:08, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WND a "blog"?

message: "WorldNetDaily claims to be "the largest independent, full-service newssite in the world."[7]."
Link goes to a 2004 WND article, (not a RS V secondary source) dead Alexa links and claims from Farrah himself. If it was a valid claim in 2004, it no longer is, as asserted. WND also is not as popular as several 'liberal' sites, and this might be important to include.  More claims in need of attention coming! - F.A.A.F.A. 23:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Without third-party verification, this unsubsantiated claim is no different than original research and doesn't belong in Wikipedia. Per the Wikipedia official policy on verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. 'Verifiable' in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." Further on in that same official policy, note the following: If an article topic has no reliable, third-party sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. 207.69.137.202 06:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Third party sources are extremely important, generally, but here, we are saying WND has claimed something.  What better source, then, then a page, by WND, making that claim?  We've struck gold in this case. Kc8ukw 17:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Claims