RationalWiki's Q4 2016 Fundraiser
We are 100% user-supported!
Without you, there is no RationalWiki!
Goal: $5000 Donations so far: $2890

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
Help and donate today!


From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Icon media.svg

This Media related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too!

This article is of HIGH importance to the wiki.

See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • The section Obama's birth certificate controversy needs updating with their new, almost pornographic interest, in analysing the released copy.
Information icon.svg Cover Story Nominee
This article has been nominated, among others, for random inclusion on the Main Page.
Please discuss its nomination on the this talk page.
If it is accepted, its front-page abstract can be found here and its editnotice here.

This page is automatically archived by Archivist
Archives for this talk page: <1>


[edit] Not to be confused with

WMD? (talk) 18:01, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

David Rives appears to be their current young earth creationism "scientist". He's got a ton of videos in his archive, but i have not come across him outside of WND. He may need some expansion. Petey Plane (talk) 15:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

[edit] Cover story (sticky)

Nominating WND, probably the standard bearer for far-right, wingnut internet "news" sites.

  • They promote creationism, and basically every other crank scientific theory of the far right (global warming denial, abiotic oil, vaccine truthers, etc...)
  • Biblical literallists
  • The original Birther promoters
  • Just look at the list of their regular commentators (Ray Comfort, Ted Nugent, Pat Buchanan, Chuck Norris, Phyllis Schlafly, Larry Clayman, the list goes on and on)
  • Farah's mustache
  • Now David Barton's exclusive publisher, along with all the other tripe they publish
  • Actually got in small feud with Andrew Schlafly over the conservative Bible project

And, unlike most of the absurdist wingnut sites, they can occasionally influence the mainstream media narrative

(i also think i polished it pretty good, with some quality snark, if i do say so myself) So yep, throwing WND's hat in the ring.Petey Plane (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Needs a thorough fact check, and its contents have previously been the sort of thing that gets outdated quickly - David Gerard (talk) 15:13, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Ok, i'll work on that.Petey Plane (talk) 15:17, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

[edit] The polls

They appear to be outdated URLs, and I'm not sure if they're archived on archive.org. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:21, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

[edit] WND#Claims_of_objectivity

This is a bad section. Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 20:23, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

True, the quote is useful though. I'll find a better place for it and delete that section.Petey Plane (talk) 20:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the order of the columns (in relation to their relevancy) in general is a little out of whack. Next thing to fix.Petey Plane (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal tools