Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rangergordon (talk | contribs) at 04:28, 19 October 2008 (→This page is desperately POV: It's acceptable to cite expert opinion as opinion rather than as fact.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

/Archive 1

The Onion citation

I included a link to Snopes article about how they cited a satirical article on the Onion about Harry Potter witchcraft. --78.16.146.144 (talk) 18:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is the link, http://www.snopes.com/humor/iftrue/potter.asp, it was removed because it was added to the article without any actual text. amRadioHed (talk) 06:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

ConWebWatch deemed inclusionable by Misplaced Pages's lawyer

From what I can figure out, in the middle of '06, Newsmax's lawyers threatened to sue Misplaced Pages over the article on them. Too much truth (IMHO). In response, Wiki's lawyer, User:BradPatrick, posted a sample article reading like an PR Release for Newsmax. (probably written by Newsmax and mandated by them to avoid a lawsuit) Even this article included ConWebWatch, and the very fact that the Misplaced Pages 'office' posted a protected 'alternate' article with the ConWebWatch link included renders this source as RS + V. I look forward to documenting WND and Joe Farah's central roles in propogating and spreading the debunked 'Clinton Body Count' and 'Vince Foster Murder' Conspiracy Theories.

Please see Talk:NewsMax_Media/Newstuff and Talk:NewsMax_Media#Office_action - Cheers - Fairness And Accuracy For All 06:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Guettarda 07:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm going to stop arguing this point and my others. I think I'll always be outvoted anyways. (If someone else wants to bring them up, I'll back you up. Perhaps questions will be raised after it is nominated as a good article.) Anyways, those sections do need rewritten a little, citations standardized, &c. Kc8ukw 01:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

WND aslo reported someone being shot on Flight 93 i post some other problems with their reporting here...

http://911review.org/brad.com/sept11_cell-phones/illinois_flight-93.html

including a post saying a cell phone call from flight 93 was recieved in Illinois by 911 emergency operators.

This could not be true since a cell phone call would go to the local police (in Pa), even if cell phone call were possible at 35,000ft.

engineer says cell phones not possible from 35,000 ft Sept 11

Another problem was the report of someone being shot on Flight 93 to cover themselves (apparently) they posted followup articles the list of articles is here...

Hijacker shot passenger on Flight 11: FAA memo

WorldNetDaily: FAA covering up 9-11 gun, whistleblower agent says

WorldNetDaily: Did FAA get Flight 11 gun story from FBI?

[http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=26732 FAA official claims gun memo not draft]

other posts i find at least contraversial are... WorldNetDaily: Saddam's WMD have been found

Al-Qaida warns Muslims: Time to get out of U.S.

since i am not comfortable posting changes in this Wiki, if someone wants, they can post this on the WND page

Brad

ConWebWatch

I've removed most of the sections about articles that deal with ConWebWatch for two reasons 1) despite the earlier incident with NewsMax, I am not convinced that ConWebWatch is in general a reliable source. 2) If something is only discussed by ConWebWatch I am not convinced that it is necessarily notable enough to be worth including here. JoshuaZ 04:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You know I agree with you. (Check the archives here if you want the discussion.) Kc8ukw 07:01, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh? ConWebWatch is considered too partisan to be a reliable source, but WorldNetDaily isn't? Que? ChrisStansfield 00:37, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You have to separate the op/ed columns from the news items. They are two different things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.214.145 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The word "conservative"

WorldNetDaily is described as "conservative" several times. While much effort has gone into eliminating the kind of POV that might suggest bias against that Website, I wonder whether such a lukewarm term is completely accurate. After all, "conservative" can describe The Wall Street Journal and The Economist--neither of which have taken such extreme positions as WorldNetDaily has. Surely an unbiased distinction, made objectively on the basis of the publications' political positions, can be made. I'm not sure which term might serve to make such an unbiased distinction, but "conservative" doesn't ... quite ... seem strong enough. The reader may be deprived of the full picture. Rangergordon (talk) 10:55, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be WP:V and WP:NPOV to describe WND as "far right conservative" citing page 76, see here, of the Alterman book ISBN 0465001769 Also, citing that same WP:RS reference (bottom of pg 76), WND could be described as tending to be more 'activist' than 'journalist'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I wasn't referring to the discussion about that book--after all, the book wasn't written with the intention of following Misplaced Pages's neutrality guidelines, being an opinion piece, which makes it necessarily POV. I'm saying there are a lot of different brands of conservatism, and it's a disservice to the reader not to make distinctions between them. It's akin to describing both The New Yorker and People's Weekly World as "liberal" publications. Some probably would call The New Yorker "liberal," but the Wiki article for the World shows that it's published by the Communist Party, giving the reader a more accurate picture of the publication's journalistic slant. The publisher of WND is an evangelical conservative--as distinguished from the fiscal conservatives who publish, say, The Wall Street Journal. The influence of the publishers on both publications' editorial content and style is obvious: WND takes on many issues the WSJ never would, and vice-versa--a fact which is both verifiable and NPOV. I suggest "evangelical conservative." Rangergordon (talk) 08:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

And, in fact, I shall make that change and see what happens ... Rangergordon (talk) 05:36, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

That term makes it sound like it's a publication of a religious organization. It's verifiable that WND publishes articles and commentary on religious topics, and the religious leanings of many of its editors and writers is obvious, but this wording makes it sound like something different than what it is. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If it is inaccurate to describe a political publication run by members of an evangelical conservative political movement as an "evangelical conservative" publication, then there must be some other way that the publication and its views may be distinguished from one run by, say, economic conservatives. There is a clear difference. What terminology do you suggest? Rangergordon (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest looking at social conservatism and paleoconservatism. Usually the former is used when a distinction from fiscal conservatism is wanted, whereas the latter can encompass both socially and fiscally conservative views. Based on my own reading of Farah, I think the paleo label is apt. ⇔ ChristTrekker 14:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree, in that "paleoconservatism," as evidenced by its etymology, refers to classic, pre-1970s conservatism--i.e., anticommunism, anti-labor, laissez-faire economics, etc.--as distinguished from post-1970s neoconservatism. The evangelical conservative movement was founded in the late 1970s by Paul Weyrich, Jerry Falwell, et al, and represented a radical break from classic conservatism.

Out of respect for history alone, it would be entirely incorrect to use "paleoconservatism" as a euphemism for evangelical conservatism. Rangergordon (talk) 09:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that's the problem, isn't it? I think that something like social conservatism and paleoconservatism describes WND fairly well. You think that your newly-invented term "evangelical conservatism", which is distinct from either of these others, is better. I don't intend to use "paleoconservatism" as a euphemism for "evangelical conservatism", first because I intend to use paleo for what it means, and second because I don't know what the accepted definition of "evangelical conservatism" is or if it even has one.

I'll grant that a majority of the WND writers and editors have an overtly religious worldview, and their writings reflect that, certainly. But the political ideology expressed, taken on its own merits, seems generally paleo or SocCons to me. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The only reason we had to invent new terms like "evangelical conservativism" was, I believe, because you objected to terms like "far-right." However, I'd be willing to go with "social conservative" if that what "SocCons" is supposed to mean. WND does seem to favor government regulation of personal conduct, as social conservatives tend to do. But I'm mystified by any conflation of "paleoconservative" with "social conservative" as if they meant the same thing; in my understanding, paleocons were/are economic conservatives. That is, they concerned themselves mainly with economic issues, and, at least in theory, they were opposed to government interference in private conduct. The stance taken by neo-, so-called "evangelical," and social conservatives is just the opposite--which is the whole point of making this distinction. Rangergordon (talk) 12:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Paleos and SocCons are at about the same place on social issues, the difference is that the former believe these are personal issues the gov't should stay out of, while the latter believe that gov't power should be used to promote this social agenda. "Paleoconservatism is a term for an anti-communist and anti-authoritarian right wing movement that stresses tradition, civil society and classical federalism, along with familial, religious, regional, national and Western identity." WND has writers that fall into both camps. ⇔ ChristTrekker 17:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference ChristTrekker states: That "the former believe these are personal issues the gov't should stay out of, while the latter believe that gov't power should be used to promote this social agenda" is a major difference, both philosophically and in terms of policy, which is why the distinction between paleoconservatives and social conservatives is important, so this philosophical distinction should be clearly made in the article.

Also since, as was stated and verified by ChristTrekker above, the political opinions of WND writers are certainly reflected in their news stories, the article should reflect that WND's practices--regarding stories clearly labeled as "news" rather than "opinion" or "commentary"--sometimes conflict with the Society of Professional Journalists' code of ethics, specifically with regard to "personal values," "stereotyping", and "advocacy." Rangergordon (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone please check this for POV

Haven't gone over this too thoroughly but the article seems rather biased. For example, calling them "far right?" I mean, come on - that's about as POV as you get. That is generally a derogatory term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.228.245.174 (talk) 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I would personally agree that the "far right" term should be removed; that's a pure opinion. They do target the social conservative / evangelical Christian segment these days, but I'm not sure if even that "socially conservative" as a descriptor is POV or not.

WorldNetDaily's tendency to flirt with conservative conspiracy theories (North American Union, soy makes you gay, etc.) and give headline treatment to material of questionable authenticity (eg headlining the Larry Sinclair & Barack Obama deal when almost all other sites dismissed it as completely unverifiable) is MHO very notable -- it's really what distinguishes them from even other cultural conservative news sites.--Soundwave106 (talk) 21:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Check the Eric Alterman book source, pgs 75-76. That author uses the 'far right' descriptor, and seems to meet WP:V and WP:RS standards. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:54, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Disproportionate

About half of this article is about WND's controversial articles. This seems to be a disproportionately large section of the article. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

far right

Yaf recently removed the cited "far right". The linked reliable source is an article in the Nashville Times headlined "Far-right Web site settles case stemming from Gore 2000 campaign". Yaf, please explain your edit, it seems to ignore the obvious sourced 'far right' description. SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the source. It does not say "far right" in the text of the article. It says "conservative web site". Your POV pushing needs to stop. The cited article says, "Conservative Web site WorldNetDaily has settled a legal case with a Tennessee businessman after admitting that work it published more than seven years ago is untrue." Yaf (talk) 15:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why ignore that it says "Far Right" in bold text in the title of the article? SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Why POV push continuously, when the text of the cited article says "conservative website"? You are pushing a POV, here, contrary to the spirit of Misplaced Pages. Please stop. Yaf (talk) 17:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand why, when properly sourced information doesn't meet your POV, it should be considered as POV pushing. Is there a chance that you are POV pushing in your opposition against? The 'far right' descriptor is properly sourced per WP:V. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Titles of newsprint articles are notorious for leaving false impressions at times, in their attempts to boost circulation by catching potential reader's eyes. For this reason, it is better to use the text of the newsprint articles for the most factual representation of statements. I am favoring the use of actual statements within the articles cited, not the eyegrabbing headlines that are often written to mislead while drawing readers in. OK? Yaf (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? I did use the article text from the New York Observer. You still reverted. Explain your arbitrary actions and contrived explanations. SaltyBoatr (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Using a far left source to call what most call a "conservative website" a "far right" "conservative website" is POV pushing. The goal is to achieve balance, using mainstream sources. The credibility of the article suffers greatly when a far left socialistic bias permeates the intro/lede. OK? Yaf (talk) 21:57, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, the Nashville Times and the New York Observer are not "far left socialist bias". SaltyBoatr (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

It is the Nashville Post, not the Nashville Times, and it calls it a "conservative web site". The New York Observer is a well known far left paper, with much the same leftist bias as the Huffington Post. Credibility will suffer if we go with the descriptions of the far left for calling this conservative web site a "far right" conservative website. I would argue that "far right" doesn't even go with "conservative". It is OR to put these two descriptors together from two different sources. Yaf (talk) 22:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nashville Post calls it a "Far-right Web site" too. Is the Nashville Post known for far left socialist bias? Is the New York Observer? I also provided a mainstream book source too. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Why then did you just revert my book cite? Your edit summary is misleading and offers no explanation. I have provided three solid WP:V sources of 'far right'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 00:06, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yaf reverted again, with the edit summary "READ THE DAMN SOURCES. THEY SAY conservative NOT FAR RIGHT!!!!!" Pardon me, the book source says "so far to the right as to tend towards outer space", the Nashville Post says "Far-right Web site..." and the New York Observer says "On the far-right Web site WorldNetDaily...". So, Yafs edit summary "THEY SAY conservative NOT FAR RIGHT" appears flatly wrong. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

You are picking words at random from the page. The source uses the "so far to the right, as to tend towards outer space" in reference to describing another topic, not WorldNetDaily. Read farther down the page, and the source says "conservative" in describing WorldNetDaily. This is improper WP:SYN, to attach comments about one topic on a cited source page to another topic on the same page of the reference. If you read the article from the Nashville Post, the article says "conservative web site WorldNetDaily". Picking words randomly from a page and somehow putting them together, contrary to what is quoted together, is POV pushing and improper synthesis. As I said previously, please read the sources!!! Your flagrant abuse of POV pushing needs to stop. Yaf (talk) 17:37, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Not random at all. Read the whole passage. See the bottom of page 75 "right-wing sites...like worldnetdaily.com". Also, the New York Observer article plainly says 'far right'. The Nasville Post, also says plainly 'far right'. SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Then, it is intentional pure malice. The cited sources say "conservative" not "far right conservative" in the texts of the sources. Stop the POV pushing. Yaf (talk) 12:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Malice? Try some WP:AGF.

The reliable sourcing does say "far right" and also "right wing". I grant they also say "conservative". Would you accept "far right, conservative" (adding a comma) as a compromise? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:55, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

www.crosstabs.org

Yaf, two questions about your recent cite: 1) Is www.crosstabs.org a WP:V reliable source? 2)Where in that cite to you see the words "far left"? All I see is one user comment from an anonymous reader using a pseudonym. Does that meet WP:V standards for you? Thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:13, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

JCDenton2052 and Propaganda organisations

JCDenton2052 has added Category:Propaganda organisations to this article three times now, without comment regarding any basis for this. I am posting this to try to reach resolution on this subject. ⇔ ChristTrekker 13:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

What is the definition of a 'propaganda organization'? Can I read this definition somewhere objective? Or is it subjective? SaltyBoatr (talk) 15:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion request

I saw this listed at Misplaced Pages:Third opinion. As a neutral third party, I would suggest that having a newspaper describe a website as "far right" does not necessarily mean that the website is "far right". Newspapers (and books, and televised news broadcasts, etc.) are known for adding editorial slants to stories. Although the inclusion of "far right" does not necessarily reflect a POV addition by the editor, it does constitute the addition of POV from a third-party source.

Because "far right" is often used as a pejorative term and the definition is subjective, I recommend not stating it as a fact in the article. I belive that a reasonable solution would be to rewrite the lead as follows:

"WorldNetDaily, also known as WND, is a conservative web site and online news site, founded in 1997. It is currently in the top 90 news sites as listed at Alexa. It has been described by some writers as 'far right' in its political leanings."

Sources would, of course, be needed for the final sentence, but I think it would get everyone's point across: (1) it has been described as far right, and (2) stating as a fact that it is far right violates Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy. The sources provided prove only that it has been described as far right, not that it actually is. I hope this helps. Best wishes to all, GaryColemanFan (talk) 16:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I could accept that compromise. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I could accept that compromise. It is an excellent suggestion. Thanks! Yaf (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It sounds good to me, too. ⇔ ChristTrekker 21:19, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I think that both Yaf and I agree that the dispute is resolved, and the page protection can be lifted so that the 3rd party compromise identified above can be implemented. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit implemented. Yaf (talk) 21:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Described as "Far Right"

By whom and by what measure? Who are the "some writers" and why should their opinion matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.104.164 (talk) 10:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

WorldNetDaily, as an online-only, opinion-based news source, can rightly be judged by its peers. There are many, many of these which are happy to characterize WorldNetDaily as "far right." Lots of these are unapologetically biased--just as WorldNetDaily is.

If WorldNetDaily were to make an effort to embrace the SPJ's Code of Ethics, then perhaps it could then be judged by MSM's standards, which--on occasions when it is necessary to refer to WorldNetDaily, tends to describe it more judiciously as "conservative," "religious conservative" or "evangelical conservative."

As it is, given WorldNetDaily's propensity to use terms such as "far left," it has no grounds to complain when its peers on equal footing judge it as being "far right." Rangergordon (talk) 06:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Controversies

The list of controversies is misleading and biased. One segment on Anglo-Saxon self-hatred is a commentary by an invited writer and how degree of controversy of this op/ed piece is entirely subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.214.145 (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Conwebwatch

It's an invalid source, they're not a news agency and they exclusively criticize "conservatives". WND has plenty of Libertarians running around its pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.246.214.145 (talk) 17:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

• • I changed nothing, but Media Matters is an invalid source as well. Calling it a watchdog group is just plain silly. It is a propaganda site, and one that spreads lies at that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jspugh (talk • contribs) 23:21, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Controversies and Conwebwatch

The controversies on this article are a POV violation and they are sourced to a political website conwebwatch. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.175.66.94 (talk) 19:37, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

This page is desperately POV

Previously, I was informed that op-ed pieces are not RS and cannot be cited on Misplaced Pages. On this page I learn op-ed pieces are RS as long as they criticize conservatives or conservative publications like WorldNetDaily. This article calls the website "unreliable" and links to this. Not only is this an op-ed piece, it does not use the term unreliable. The same claim of unreliability also links to a critical op-ed piece by Media Matters which criticizes CBS News for publishing the same report as WND. Interestingly, Misplaced Pages editors critical of WND do not consider CBS News unreliable. This article seriously defames WorldNetDaily. I would not be surprised if the website takes legal action against Misplaced Pages for allowing this. RonCram (talk) 17:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Op-eds may be cited as the opinions of their authors; they may not be cited as fact. According to WP:RS, "Opinion pieces are only reliable for statements as to the opinion of their authors, not for statements of fact, and should be attributed in-text." Based on this, you are correct that it would be POV for the article to state outright that WND is "unreliable" based on the opinion of the author of an op-ed piece. If a third-party, trained professional journalist had published that opinion, however, the fact that it was published may be cited.

You're also correct that John Young did not use the term "unreliable," which is why the article doesn't cite that term as a direct quote. Young used the analogy that WND "is to news what the Unabomber was to the art of letter writing"--which implies unreliability, among any number of other things. So, if you're more comfortable with the direct quote than the paraphrase, I recommend you reword the statement that way. Also, if you're concerned about POV, and if you know of any third-party, trained professional journalists who have published opinions vouching for WND's reliability, you should also cite them.

I don't think you're really concerned about Misplaced Pages's CBS News article (although, if you are, and can find similar statements regarding its "unreliability," you can cite them there.) I think you're really more concerned that the MediaMatters citation only obliquely supports the article's statement about WND's unreliability. And, I have to agree with you: Even though at least one of the MediaMatters op-ed's authors is a creditable source, the piece is mainly a criticism of CBS News. WND's presumed unreliability is only used as supporting evidence. The author should be able to find a more apt citation than this one, so I wouldn't object to the removal of this particular citation. Rangergordon (talk) 04:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

1. Alterman, Eric (2003). What liberal media?: the truth about bias and the news. New York: Basic Books. pp. pg 76. ISBN 0-465-00176-9. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)
2. "Far-right Web site settles case". Retrieved 2008-02-27. Conservative Web site WorldNetDaily has settled a legal case with a Tennessee businessman ...