Un-bee-lievable Article to Add Now or Later Maybe
Leaving this here so someone (probably me when I have the time, but others are free to do so) can wrap it into the article. As reported by Skeptics with a K last week, NaturalNews recently made a post about Monsanto undergoing research to replace bees with genetically engineered flying ant "abomination[s]" . Only problem: they're not. NaturalNews's main source was a news article on the "satire" site WorldNewsDailyReport (not to be confused with another crazy website). Other headlines from the site include "Texas: 14-Year Old Virgin Falls Pregnant After Flu Shot" and "Grandmother with AK-47 Saves Cops being Attacked by Street Gang", so it's kinda understandable how a NaturalNews writer might fall for this stuff. ℕoir LeSable (talk) 17:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
"Destroy Alex Jones or we will destroy YOU"
"Scientologist" in first sentence?
I don't think "Scientologist" belongs in the very first sentence of the article. The problem with NaturalNews isn't first and foremost that Adams is or was a Scientologist; I think it's misleading to put it there, and it's fine in the body of the article. Fuzzy wants it to be loud and upfront. What do others think?
(The citation is to a blog post, but it's a pretty well argued blog post and as a past critic of Scientology myself I think it makes its case that Adams is or was a Scientologist and is clearly influenced by their ideas.) - David Gerard (talk) 21:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Maybe we can describe him in a more generic sense, a "cultist", and have it link to Scientology? The biggest problem is that this article is about NaturalNews first and foremost, Mike Adams second. By describing him as a Scientologist from the get-go, we immediately paint an association between this and Scientology. Furthermore, as you said, Mike Adams isn't emphasizing on his adherence to Scientology that much and isn't mentioned, much less listed in the notable followers section, in the Scientology article. Putting the Scientology part seems to be a rhetorical device for a dubious association at best. The Scientology part, then, is not very relevant, if even notable, to an opening section of the article and I also think it should be described under "Health beliefs" or "Other woo". --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 21:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is that he's an alt-med and conspiracy crank, and I think the intro gets that across - David Gerard (talk) 21:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- Well, it certainly deserves mention. Analysis, even.
- And I don't support going by the more generic "cultist" — we know which is the relevant cult here, and as such, we can (and should) specify it as Scientology.
- But if the mere mention of Scientology (in this context) would necessitate some manner of semi-long explanation for people not to think that "Oh, NaturalNews is a part of the church of Scientology?"...
- If so, it might be wise to move that point down into the article proper. Again; if so. My two cents. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I think the root of this issue is how Mike Adams and NaturalNews are tangled with each other. We wouldn't have this problem is they were two separate articles. Not saying that they should be split, only trying to bring up a hypothetical scenario. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 23:26, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
- I noticed that the opening paragraph calls him a Scientologist while the Other woo section lists him as an ex-member. If this matters I can possibly find out for sure which is right, but I won't spend the time if nobody caresAntigem (talk) 21:08, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Stopped clock moments?
Does he have any? I was struck by the fact that he thinks Bitcoin is trash and has written a few articles about it being so, with the occasional actual point (e.g. that Proof of Word is stupid). Any other moments of accidental correctness? - David Gerard (talk) 08:50, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
New Information found
NaturalNews.com believes Mainstream Media's purpose (example: CNN News) is to control thoughts of Humans, Slavery etc.
Read this article and see what you think and also This Page needs a new section..
I discovered Mike Adams has found a site called Media Fact Watch, so check it out and read some pages and then write your opinions.
We need new sections
Here's one resource of Mike Adams
This is back in February, but still relevant and should be incorporated into the article. Also, we need to discuss Mike Adams's history of scamming people online. David Gorski wrote up about it.
Adams has a long and ignominious history online, having started out (as best as I can tell) selling Y2K scams. From the beginning, Adams was talented. He saw the possibilities in web marketing to drive traffic to his sites and use that to monetize them very early on. In this, we can see him honing his early techniques. Indeed, he took it far beyond just that, mastering the dark arts of using “black hat” search engine optimization, running link farms, and using those skills to drive traffic back to his site. It turns out that the skill set that made Adams so talented at crafting mass e-mail marketing campaigns that actually persuaded the marks to give up their money is the same skill set that he later honed to become an expert at SEO. He also has a history of selling software to be used for spamming, back when email spam was a huge concern, and used to boast about his software’s ability to evade antispam software. And, of course, before Google cracked down on the practice for purposes of increasing a website’s Google ranking, Adams used to run a huge server farm, with hundreds of different domain names (Internet sites) providing thousands of web links back to Natural News. He’s very big in the world of online alternative medicine and, in the era of Donald Trump, has aligned himself with Trump and the alt right. He’s even been punished more recently for trying to game Google to his advantage, with NaturalNews.com being briefly delisted from Google, which led predictably to his usual overblown hysterics.
NaturalNews is pretty much the article for Mike Adams, but Adams is a fraud and I think it's scary he could make such an elaborate ecosystem of bullshit. I hope this guy gets persecuted for fraud and libel one day. --It's-a me, LeftyGreenMario! 03:52, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry I'm doing it wrong
I don't wiki so I'm sure I'm doing this incorrectly. Sorry
"Red meat (yes, he won't eat meat unless it's somehow neither cooked nor red)"
I mean, lots of people consider fish meat, and honestly, there hasn't been a trichinella case in the US since the 1950s; pork is safe to eat raw at this point, and even was back then if you froze it for a while first. Lots of cultures have this as a standard thing; to a German, raw ground pork plus spices is called "mett," and you can get it at about as many restaurants as have submarine sandwiches here (that is, it's not uncommon.) Americans are pretty over-protective about raw meat.
Statistically, raw lettuce is far more dangerous than most raw meats. Exceptions for poultry and wild game, but, more Americans died from lettuce poisoning than all meats combined for all five of the last five years, not counting last year whose numbers aren't in yet.
Pissed at us?
I just came across this 2017 NaturalNews article by Mike Adams, which mentions RW briefly: "By censoring Natural News, Google also vastly improved the rankings of dishonest, malicious and pharma-funded Natural News critics who then moved up into the ranking spots that should have been legitimately held by NaturalNews.com content. This effectively silenced Natural News from being able to defend itself against all the malicious attackers and pro-pharma publishers who have waged a coordinated smear campaign against myself and the Natural News website. Those sites include the Genetic Literacy Project, run by Jon Entine, whom Natural News exposed as a wife beater, and pharma-funded Forbes.com, where Jon Entine was a contributing author for several years. It also includes all the vaccine propagandist websites (Rational Wiki, etc.) that have been desperately trying to silence myself and Natural News because of our efforts to protect children from mercury in vaccines." Does this warrant inclusion in the "Pissed at us" category? --Yisfidri (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)