Talk:NaturalNews/Archive1

I read your trashing of naturalnews.com. Maybe you should try citing specifics and then showing footnoted references instead of merely trashing him.^{— Unsigned, by: 90.55.104.112 / talk / contribs}

Glad to know you're a fan! ADK^{...I'll exemplify your diesel engine!} 00:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Shouldn't we just move this to Talk:NaturalNews? Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 00:30, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Certainly. ADK^{...I'll feel your suicidal lemming!} 00:31, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Done. (duh). Aboriginal Noise ^{Oh, you want to hit people with garbage cans?} 00:33, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Don't we have a better sidebar template for this? I will check. ħuman 02:09, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

This article is highly biased and unprofessional. It's more a rant then an objectieve observation with pros and cons. So it is far from "rational". My advise: start over again with a different writer.^{— Unsigned, by: Rightstuff9 / talk / contribs}

Naturally (no pun intended), some specifics would help. Also, you should check out our mission and our point of view. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 13:07, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is highly biased and unprofessional. It's more a rant then an objectieve observation with pros and cons. So it is far from "rational". My advise: start over again with a different writer. Guess the work RNS has to undo so many comments, I'm not the only one. Wishing you pleasure with this UNrational WIKI.

Hooray for ad hominem attacks! Drink! Conservative Punk (talk)

"But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! rpeh •T•C•E• 13:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Substance?

I just happened upon the naturalnews.com website today. I thought I would google the name to see if I could find anything critical out there to get a counterbalance of the perspective espoused there. I found this page. It's quite obvious the writer of this page is hostile to the views expressed there. I would be more convinced of his arguments if he bothered to support any of them. Simply stating someone is a quack is not very useful to those not pre-disposed to the author's point of view. I would suggest spending some time actually researching the claims and refuting them and less time resorting to juvenile ad-hominem attacks. ^{— Unsigned, by: Unclesol / talk / contribs}

That's what the blue links are for. Also, it's hard to describe a site that uses a guy who thinks the planet is ruled by shapeshifting alien reptoids from another dimension as an "expert" as anything but stone cold fuck nuts. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Polishing up

Another social-networking acquaintance who is actually quite smart has referenced a NaturalNews article as if the site isn't pernicious bilge that makes the Daily Mail look like Britannica. I suggest this article is rather important and needs to become a longer and more serious smackdown of NaturalNews suitable for referring people to - David Gerard (talk) 22:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

High priority

Natural News is rising in popularity and is bat shit insane. Searching for the site we are the only high ranking skeptical material about it. Would be really good to expand this article. What directions should we take with it do you think? Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge Mike Adams so it's all in the same place. Anyone looking for one also wants the other - David Gerard (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

No objections? Merging - David Gerard (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think it works much better and more informatively as a merged article. Needs a bit of polishing up. References for every claim with captures, that sort of thing. External links section really needs winnowing and/or digesting too - David Gerard (talk) 22:09, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I think the article needs more direct quotes from NaturalNews and Mike Adams inserted somewhere. Also, if we could see about maybe posting a page capture of one of their weakly cartoons, that might be hilarious (though we might want to look into their copyrights before we do so). Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 11:23, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Need more feedback on this article

I'd really like this to be a front-page article, given its level of importance to the Wiki (as Trent states above, it's high priority; We are the #1 ranked skeptic of NaturalNews). What I really need is for some good old-fashioned feedback on this article: What can be done to improve it, what needs changing, and, most importantly, what needs to be done to get this to "Gold" status, etc? Any comments and help from the community would be greatly appreciated. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not really comfortable with the article rating system but I would agree that this article needs to be front page. One of the reasons I finally created an account was because my in-laws started repeating some of the outrageous idiocy on this site. Omar (gibber) 13:58, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Good question. It's not even a silver yet. Needs ... moar. What else has Mike Adams done out in the big world? What reasonably-documented malign influence has NaturalNews actually had in the real world, as opposed to just trying to have had? I've seen sane friends reference it like it's an actual source ... - David Gerard (talk) 14:00, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Mine some of those external links for content? - David Gerard (talk) 14:04, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Sounds good. Thank for the feedback. I knew it needed, as David so aptly put, "moar." I just was stuck in a rut and had no idea where to go from here. This helps. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 14:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Idiocy

I see you all support big pharma then? Since you like to 'trash' naturalnews ( running scared from it more like ), aspartame is dangerous, vitamins are vital, fluoride is not good for you etc...

The article seems childish, no wonder no one takes you seriously.^{— Unsigned, by: 86.11.102.64 / talk / contribs}

False dichotomy.--ZooGuard (talk) 10:13, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

If we were running scared from them, then why would we write an article critical of them? Seriously, if we were "running scared," then we wouldn't be calling them out on their woo. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 12:46, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Cause Big pharam gave us some of their super mind control pills. Тyrannis^Plead 12:49, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Aurora Colorado shooting conspiracy

I wonder if anything should be included about his conspiracies relating to the Aurora Colorado shooting. He has certainly gone way out in left field to write this http://www.prisonplanet.com/colorado-batman-shooting-shows-obvious-signs-of-being-staged.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html

98.180.3.22 (talk) 07:17, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes! It should certainly be added to this article. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:47, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This is sillier than Ray Comfort's banana video

Seriously, is Mike Adams really this stupid??? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:38, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Blog post with detailed, point-by-point citations

[2] I should backport all the cites to Mike Adams actually saying this shit, but this post took hours and turned my brain to all-natural raw food guacamole. So anyone else should feel free to - David Gerard (talk) 21:29, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course, no-one did. So I did. It's referred to the hilt now. - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Wouldn't one need to login to your blog account to do that?--Krej^talk 17:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I did it by c'n'ping appropriate text here and going right-click, "Copy link", paste into ref tags. Laborious but effective. HARD WORK AND ELBOW GREASE. (The blog post is in HTML, not wikitext, so it would have to be done by hand anyway. But you can get pretty much the blog source with "view source" on the web page.) - David Gerard (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That is one huge deluge of dumb. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 22:58, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

I just realized you meant adding the citations to the article (and not to the blog post). DOH!--Krej^talk 00:12, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

:-) Yeah, the process of turning articles into blog posts involves more or less ref-checking and rewriting, and all that should be backported to the wiki ... when I or anyone get around to it, and I made a special effort in this case 'cos NaturalNews is so pervasively noxious - David Gerard (talk) 08:51, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Silver?

What's this need for silver? The 2013 and Twitter bits are a bit bulgy. Is there anything missing? I believe naturalnews.com was or is in the Wikipedia spam filter - David Gerard (talk) 15:23, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

A little more spit and polish might bump this thing up some more. Once my classes are over and I have more time freed up, I'm gonna give this another look over. We could really use this as a top article on the Wiki, IMO. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Ban-scare articles

''There's also usually a front page article about how some loophole in an obscure new law or regulation will enable alternative medicine or natural supplements to be banned forever!" - I do remember articles like this, but there don't seem to have been any in the past month or two. Do we have citable examples? Else this is oddly bare, with everything else cited - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a few months late on this DG. But sicne I should have time to spend on RW again shortly, I'll get to work on polishing this up then. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:25, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

in which somebody mistakes Rw for an encyclopedia

This is not an appraisal of the site but an all out defamation, clearly this anti government site (natural news) has been getting too much interest and you have crawled out of the woodwork to slander it. How are we to know that you are not employed and supported by big pharma to debunk any medicine which is not endorsed by government and big business? The anti herbal and new age medicine drive has been perpetuated for quite some time, for the profit of the few, yet most of big pharmas medicines are in fact derived from herbs; asprin and morphine to name two of the most well known. Ever wonder why they burned the witches? Because they wanted to have a monopoly on healing, and enslave people though limited access to it.

You say these things as if they made sense. Natural news is woo quackery with no credible scientific study. Given enough time and a serious enough ailment, even you'll come to realize it's junk. Zero (talk) 13:01, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah, yes, but a Big Pharma shill would say that, wouldn't they.

And there's the rub. Those who are determined to believe in woo can always dismiss contrary evidence as part of the conspiracy so there really is no point in engaging with them. There are non so blind.... Innocent Bystander (talk) 13:23, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Citations all broken

NN appears to have changed their links, or to be redirecting requests linked from rationalwiki; all the citations (or some large subset) are now broken.^{— Unsigned, by: 66.169.92.172 / talk / contribs}

Request redirects. Hipo^crite 14:04, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Treat all links with template:unref?--ZooGuard (talk) 14:48, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm working on a template that is a reference but with rel=noreferrer. Wait before we do that. Zero (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 07:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

There's also anonym.to which is used to avoid giving the referred site any idea where the visitor came from. I'm very amused that NaturalNews are petty enough to be redirecting links from RationalWiki. How utterly petty. —Tom Morris (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Template:Unref is a wrapper of anonym.to.--ZooGuard (talk) 08:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Thaaaaat's the one! Just tested and it works (I've done one to start you off), we can just wrap everything in that. I'm about to start work, but if someone wants to get their regular expression on ... - David Gerard (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Done quite a few of them. I'll tackle what I can when I have time. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

While you were doing that zzzzzz thing I fixed up some more of them. There may be one or two left. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

One point of order: Should the text box say "warning"? It looks a bit harsh for a problem that is now mostly solved. ^gnostic 14:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Now a friendly blue "info" box. Better this way, I think. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 15:10, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The link for the truther stuff now leads to an article about health foods, but you can still get a republication on 911 truthers website

Adams, M (2011) Natural News.com “Jumping rope and 9/11 truth - how the sheeple have been trained to avoid unpopular truth about WTC 7” Available at: http://www.naturalnews.com/033684_911_truth_WTC_7.html [Accessed 20.44 17/4/14] Original article has been removed from the site but a republication can be found at http://911blogger.com/news/2011-09-25/naturalnews-jumping-rope-and-911-truth [Accessed 20.45 17/4/14]

Silver again

What needs to be done to get this to "silver" status? Moreover, since we are the primary skeptical site for NaturalNews and it is absolutely mission critical, what can be done to get this to the coveted "Gold" status? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd suggest making the footnotes more readable. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:20, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. I'm on it. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Basically, make the footnotes lovely, yeah. And capture-tag the lot of them (somehow) - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just silvered it, so there - David Gerard (talk) 18:57, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

REALfarmacy.com

http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/realfarmacy.com

the amount of crosslinking and authorship to and from NaturalNews and InfoWars seems suspicious as does the whois block on the site

Suspect this is a new brand spinoff

---

IceCzar ^{— Unsigned, by: IceCzar / talk / contribs 00:21, 3 November 2013‎ (UTC)}

Another associated site

http://www.naturalhealth365.com

Features the author referred to in citation 11 - Jonathan Landsman ^{— Unsigned, by: 203.27.145.53 / talk 09:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)}

Mike Adams is throwing legal threats at other people writing about him

Legal threats from Mike Adams of NaturalNews against Forbes blogger: [3] [4] [5]

Note they all cite our wonderful article :-D Our article is excruciatingly well-sourced (I use the word advisedly ... lowering my IQ by finding these things was mentally painful), but it'd be worth our while going over the whole thing again, just in case.

CaptureBot2 needs to be got going, and we need captures of every cited original - David Gerard (talk) 07:26, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

I wrote Legal action and used mostly quotes. Quotes are safer because the authors probably had lawyers check what they wrote. It's probably OK and in any case I'm simply quoting accurately what the authors wrote. Users who understand American libel law better than I do can improve what I wrote by adding or replacing some of the quotes with material that isn't quoted. Proxima Centauri (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

When we've finished capturing every citation it could be worth improving the article. The court case if it happens will bring traffic to RationalWiki. Proxima Centauri (talk) 06:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to get CaptureBot2 to watch this page, so that we don't have to go to its sandbox and get things captured? Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 09:13, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Should be, using the console. Assuming capturebot2 is currently working (I don't run that server) - David Gerard (talk) 13:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Isn't Armondikov capturebot2's manager? --|₹Λ¥$€₦₦ ^{Masturbation masturbation pies pies Brian Cox} 14:38, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I quoted Mike Adams on Dr. Mehmet Oz’s colon polyps: “Spontaneous” disease?, we need a copy of the source. Proxima Centauri (talk) 07:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The first few lines

I hope to put as much information as possible in the first few lines because that's what Google displays. I accept "promoting large scale" is slightly worse style than, "which promotes a variety of types of". Still with the concise first line it's more likely that Google will display the whole sentence. Then readers wanting to find out about our coverage of NaturalNews will know that we think it's medical woo before they decide whether to click on the link. Proxima Centauri (talk) 17:47, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Can NN's political position be easily characterised?

Sorta wingnutty-to-conspiracist, sorta hard-green with global warming denial, sorta WTF ... perhaps a section just outlining political positions taken by Adams? - David Gerard (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

It's like third positionism but without the authoritarianism. Osaka Sun (talk) 09:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll take a look later today (it's 5:15 a.m!!!) and see what I can do. I'd really love this to be another "gold" article. The biggest problem is that Adams is so fuckin' crazy that it's hard to label him. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 10:20, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think NN has a political position. Adams has found a good source of income by posing as the Health Ranger to sell snake oil and will publish each and any woo conspiracy to reinforce that. He's a con artist - and con artists don't have positions, political or otherwise. Doxys Midnight Runner (talk) 11:06, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I wonder how much he buys his own bullshit. I mean, if he were secretly busted gobbling Big Macs, that'd be clear. But do we have actual evidence he doesn't believe what he says? I don't think mere logical incoherence is sufficient to claim malice or contempt - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

This totally needs to go gold - David Gerard (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Gold/cover status?

What is keeping this article from "gold" status and from being on the front page? I'd like to polish it up enough to get it there. Multiple search engine sources (Google, Duckduckgo, Yahoo) show that we are the Number 1 skeptical source of information on this topic, so getting this on the cover can only help that. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I concur, we really want this to be a cover article. Hmm ... the sections from "2013 predictions" on are a bit weak and need severe tightening - David Gerard (talk) 20:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

anonym.to blocked by Firefox

Firefox is throwing a security/phishing warning for anonym.to links. We should look into replacing them with a similar service that doesn't trigger the alarm in popular browsers otherwise readers won't be able to read the references easily. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

How annoyance. I suppose there's archive.org and archive.today links - David Gerard (talk) 12:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Nominate for cover article

99 references and quite readable. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 15:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I like the idea. Time for FURIOUS NITPICKING!!

• Does every reference check out?
• Can we use something other than anonym.to, given that's in Google's malware shitlist? (Perhaps a template that uses a redirector, so we can change the template in one place rather than links in 99.)
• Anything seriously missing?

-David Gerard (talk) 15:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I've changed Template:Unref to use donotlink as its default, since that provider is good with Chrome and does the same job. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Didn't work. Reverted. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:41, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I changed it back to ZooGuard's original, just using google.com. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 19:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok, but now let's get out of fine-toothed combs and really go through every aspect of this article. It's gotta be absolutely perfect for ti to be worth cover status. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 08:51, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Any objections?

I'd like to up this to cover story status, unless there are any blatant problems. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 03:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

*cough* oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 21:47, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'll put a "last call" on the saloon bar - David Gerard (talk) 12:03, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

It's outside of the parts of the clogosphere than I keep an eye on, so I can't tell if something is missing. About what's here: it's uneven, with some things receiving disproportionate coverage (e.g. the predictions list that also suffers from lack of context and commentary).--ZooGuard (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah ... I'm not convinced those sections are worth keeping, at least at full length. I am tempted to characterise the list rather than write it out in full. Were any specific predictions not actually wrong? etc. - David Gerard (talk) 16:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

For now, I've collapsed it below. It can be worked on and maybe added again. Other possibly unnecessary sections are NaturalNews#Email_spam, NaturalNews#Creative_endeavors, and NaturalNews#Twitter_silliness. Thoughts? αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (gossip/stalk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The email spam and creative endeavours are relevant. The Twitter tantrum could be compressed - David Gerard (talk) 18:43, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Looks good. Shall I give it a day, then gold it? oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (gossip/stalk) 18:54, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Barring strenuous (actionable) objection, sure - David Gerard (talk) 19:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

So, you golding this? It's not hard, just tedious. Would help if we had an image for the cover blurb, but e.g. Poe's law doesn't have one - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Predictions

Collapsed, can be added later.

Ey. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (gossip/stalk) 17:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Pissed at us

@NaturalNews_txt "only site worse is the "rationalwiki" site which exist purely to promote abject stupidity and muffle any progress concerning enlightenment." Scream!! (talk) 17:55, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

HOW DID THEY KNOW?!1!

Was it a commenter or the site itself? Sir ℱ℧ℤℤϒℂᗩℑᑭƠℑᗩℑƠ (talk/stalk) 18:50, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

No Idea - pure chance I found the tweet! Scream!! (talk) 19:51, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

That twitter's supposedly quotes by NN, but Google can't find that quote anywhere on the Internet - David Gerard (talk) 23:39, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

^. Give Google 24 hours, let's see if whatever page it's on gets crawled. αδελφός ΓυζζγςατΡοτατο (talk/stalk) 00:02, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Here it is. Just some NN supporter. Ah well. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (talk/stalk) 20:00, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

And WMF apparently "founded" the other wiki. Chronological impossibility, but hey. PacWalker 20:04, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

"Progress concerning enlightenment" is one of the most amusing euphemisms for "My incorrect beliefs" that I've ever seen. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 20:38, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

It honestly sounds like a Conservapedia slogan, maybe about the Bible Project. FüzzyCätPötätö (talk/stalk) 20:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

right on the front page of his website i found this

Hundreds of children brain damaged by the swine flu vaccine to receive $90 million in financial compensation from UK government when did the swine flu vaccine cause brain damage? and also this Like any ecosystem, our bodies host trillions of bacterial cells that affect our everyday health No shit Sherlock Bubba41102 (talk) 15:57, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

Medical conspiracy theories

Was United States Air Force Brigadier General Jack D. Ripper an advisor? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

People already know what this is about. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Dr Armrest was far better :) 82.44.143.26 (talk) 16:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

NaturalNews Radio

NaturalNews has a radio broadcast for itself, BTW. Here's the home page. --92.233.220.248 (talk) 09:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

There's no need to use donotlink on RW - MediaWiki nofollows all user-added links by default. Unobscured link is http://radio.naturalnews.com/ - David Gerard (talk) 15:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I'd used donotlink just in case that wasn't the case.92.233.220.248 (talk) 00:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not convinced rel=nofollow is actually respected. I can't imagine google just throwing away what wikipedia considers relevant, e.g. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 15:47, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

They claim to, and that's what they recommend for user-editable content (e.g. wikis) so as to discourage spammers. In practice I've found donotlinks problematic when the target page disappears and one then needs to McKeith around to discover what the source page was so as to then go looking for an archive copy - David Gerard (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess "Google ignores metadata they claim to respect" is a conspiracy theory anyways. I'm a conspiracy theorist now! And I'm all out of aluminum foil. ikanreed ^{You probably didn't deserve that} 19:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

I think there should be at least a note on the NaturalNews radio show, by the way. It'd be nice to have more info on the black hole of disinformation that is NaturalNews. 92.233.220.248 (talk) 00:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to write it up, if you're feeling brave - David Gerard (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

I think that it should get it's own page. 92.233.220.248 (talk) 20:17, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

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]" [6]. 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"

How lame can you actually get? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:48, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

"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)

Yes. Anything to gain by adding on "Scientologist", though? I don't think so? It's not necessary, not in the intro at least. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 21:48, 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)

@Antigem The only evidence I can find to back up the claim Mike Adams is/was a Scientologist is that he has a passing resemblance to a man in a Scientology video. However they are different people.

Guy in Scientology video just looks a bit like Mike.

. I'm deleting the claim. If anyone can find hard evidence Mike is/was a Scientologist they can reinstate it. Guvax (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)