Talk:Right Wing Watch

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Icon internet.svg

This internet related article has not received a brainstar for quality. Please consider expanding the article appropriately. See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Editorial notes
  • This article and the associated talk page have been subject to long-term spamming by a persistent Styxhexenhammer666 fanboy weirdo who keeps trying to smear Jared Holt with random Facebook posts and crappy webshite blogs. Revert, block, protect if you see them trying to add this information.


I'm wondering if there is any criticism directed at this organization. I know it's clearly biased against right-wings so I myself am hesitant on citing this site for that kind of reason, something people will dismiss. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:01, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Media Bias Fact Check says "Right Wing Watch does occasionally take statements out of context and they sometimes source to far left sources. Overall, this is a left biased website that is mixed for factual reporting." It is probably unwise to use them as a primary source, then. However they generally aggregate news from the interwebs so secondary sources shouldn't be too hard to find. Regards, Cosmikdebris (talk) 03:14, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I haven't seen an instance where they did take a quote out of context. Media Bias Fact Check links one evidence of "taking out of context" to Snopes, but Snopes was referring to Newslo, and Right Wing Watch wasn't wrong; they did quoted him saying that "those who didn't vote Trump will be guilty of murder" and did not fabricate claims about a "civil war". So that link Media Bias Fact Check used is... weird. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 03:33, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
It's always good practice to get multiple sources, especially for controversial or divisive topics, to avoid the appearance of bias. Media Bias Fact Check pays attention to the use of loaded words in headlines, too, as a reference point for a site's bias. Cheers, Cosmikdebris (talk) 04:19, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Styx fanboy ponders: Does Rationalwiki endorse rape?[edit]

See the main article on this topic: Talk:Styxhexenhammer666
Rough storm pirate.png Ahoy, matey!
Beware, for there be a great sea of
Concern Troll Bullshit ahead!

If not then they would not have issues with legitimate complaints raised against the most well known member of Right Wing Watch2600:1702:2A00:B3F0:3464:B5CF:8EEA:C76D (talk) 23:04, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

RW does not endorse rape. We aren't fond of bad faith accusations either. Furthermore, the allegations have little to do with RWW, but rather are directed at a single contributor. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 23:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
You really sure you don't want to leave another comment on how mean we are to Styx at Talk:Styxhexenhammer666? --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
I like how no one here can actually act in good faith. It's funny like if your not willing to put any of the flaws of rightwingwatch on an article is it really rational?2600:1702:2A00:B3F0:D4D9:B463:664A:C035 (talk) 13:06, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean, you aren't acting in good faith, you're promoting a smear campaign for Styx so... ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:10, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
A two year old Smear campaign, by the way. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 13:14, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
It's going to be a three-year smear campaign at this rate. --It's-a me, Lgm sigpic.png LeftyGreenMario!(Mod) 00:06, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Styx fanboy screams at a wall: Why is it when I post citations that are not youtube related they still get treated as if they are youtube related[edit]