Talk:WND/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 1 May 2016. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page: , (back)

Birther[edit]

I assume that points three and five are wrong - but for the benefit for those of us not completely up to date with American birth documentation or the constitution perhaps somebody could expand on them? Cheers.--Bob ^{bing up} 16:04, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

5 is absolutely wrong. 3 is wrong. 1,2, and 4 are also wrong. ħuman

19:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure they are wrong. But on point three, what I'd be interested in is knowing what is the difference, if any, in American law between a "Certificate of Live Birth" and a "Birth Certificate"- for that matter what is the difference between a "long" and "short" certificate which is sometimes mentioned. For all I know, as a Brit, this could be some important distinction. I'm prepared to bet it's not, but it would seem like to a good idea to clarify this in the article for those non USAians.

On point five, is it true that has father had Kenyan citizenship at the time of Obama's birth, and if so, is it true that US law requires that a president have two parents with US citizenship? Again, I'm sure you'll tell me it's wrong somewhere, but I sort of think the article should say where the logic falls down. In other words the article should tell us if the facts are wrong, the interpretation of the constitution is wrong, or if both are wrong. At least for the sake of RW's international audience.--Bob ^{bing up} 20:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

On 5, I'd bet WP has a good article on US citizenship. Anyway, anyone born to anyone on US soil is automatically a citizen. This, I believe, includes various overseas special territories like military bases, etc. I'm not sure, but I'd bet that anyone born to at least one US citizen parent anywhere can also be considered a natural-born citizen. ħuman

21:17, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no difference in Hawaii between a birth certificate and a certificate of live birth. The one on the net is a short form certificate, which basically says a long form one exists somewhere in the registry office and whoever issued it saw it. They have all sorts of convoluted arguments, like someone from born out of the state can still obtain a short form version in Hawaii; even if that was true (it might be) the vital piece of information on the sort form certificate is that he was born in the county of Honolulu. 5 is complete rubbish as he was born to an USian in the US, so he is a US citizen.- π 02:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but my point, which I have to say that I seem to be failing to make, is that in the article we repeat their claims but we do not refute them. Anybody reading the article from outside the US might well think they are correct.--Bob ^{bing up} 06:14, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Good point. To the sane and US-knowledgeable, it's obvious, but good point. I go ~~break~~ fix now. ħuman

06:18, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok. This will be my last comment on this. I do not for one moment believe the worldnet stuff - but our article does not refute it. It simply denies it - if you want to persuade people you've got to tell them why it is wrong. Quote sources, explain what words really mean, etc. Simply affirming that they are wrong, mistaken or lying is not the same as refuting.--Bob ^{bing up} 08:22, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well here are 4 places to start:

These could help. - π 09:36, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If we need a full refutation, that could possibly be a separate article/sub-page. The footnote does refute those points fairly well, although not with any referencing.

^narchist 11:25, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Taxed Enough Already, but…[edit]

…why not spend some money on a WND themed cruise? That's some sound financial planning. – Nick Heer 05:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Silver nomination and annoying ads[edit]

Just nominating this to get bumped up the list. Also, do we have any annoying pictures we can shove in to the middle of the article like WND does on it's "stories". It's a cheap gag, but we're hardly dining at the Ritz here. ^narchist 17:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Should we have an easy to remember nomination template that links to the brainstar criteria? ħuman

18:06, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I came here to suggest silvering it. That'll be sufficient for now. Silvering. - David Gerard (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Merge the Joseph Farah article into this one?[edit]

Joseph Farah and WND are pretty much synonymous these days. There's stuff there that should go here, really. To what extent should they be separate articles? - David Gerard (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

When I get around to writing about Farah and the Western Center for Journalism and the Forest controversy. - π 11:36, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

'gay'[edit]

Would it be worth mentioning that WND never (ok, with one or two exceptions) has the word "gay" in a title without using inverted commas? It's probably because WND's readership is like Fox News old and they used to have gay old times. Every time I see it (which they are frequently reporting on teh gays), I laugh. Thought you might too. Occasionaluse (talk) 13:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Poifeck. Examples of both, of course - David Gerard (talk) 14:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I'll start compiling a list. Occasionaluse (talk) 14:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Occasionaluse (talk) 14:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not just headlines. Any time gay or gay marriage is used within the body of articles, scare quotes are used. Petey Plane (talk) 16:24, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Should we add the article to the homopgobia category then?--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 16:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I think that'd be appropriate, considering the above examples, and that on any given day, 50% (not an exaggeration) of the editorials on their "Commentary" page are specifically anti-LGBTQ. Scott Lively, Matt Barber, Linda Harvey, and Phyllis Schlafly (all notorious homophobes, often to the point of endorsing the death penalty for homosexuality) are all regular contributors. Petey Plane (talk) 17:15, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

'k, category added.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ 17:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Poe's law[edit]

I found this on mywot, a site which lets you rate websites for 'trust':

A "Conservative" News Source that was design by liberal to keep conservatives willfully ignorant.

Now that's Poe's law if ever I saw it. I popped it up on my personal blog in case it goes away. WorldNetDaily is evidently so nuts that a conservative thinks it is merely scare-quotes-conservative and designed by a liberal to make conservatives look stupid. To be fair, if you wanted to make conservatives look stupid, going on obsessively about how Obama's birth certificate is fake because he's a Muslim socialist from Kenya who wants to force you to have a gay abortion is a pretty good way to do it... Tom Morris (talk) 12:35, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Getting this to gold[edit]

I don't want to get all Ken here, but a Google search for WorldNetDaily has this page around number 6. It would be nice if we can make this a gold standard page and appear on the frontpage. - π 01:47, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm up for helping.

Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

Been polishing a bit. What is it now lacking? - David Gerard (talk) 23:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Seems fine. Тy^Yes? 23:21, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The sidebar "directory of contents" is outdated: they seem to have gone through a redesign.
I'm not sure if the mention of Medford, Oregon is relevant. Do they actually support a State of Jefferson or is that just a fun fact?
Victoria Jackson and Janet Porter aren't listed in their commentators list any more.
Email the editor ref link is broken. Should be linked here and no longer has a hyphen.

I think it's a pretty good article, though I think a section on downright paranoia would be great, especially with the whole Brietbart thing. Cow...Hammer^time! 17:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

There is plenty for a complete paranoia section. Articles on Blood Moons, EMP attacks and Obama being the literal Devil are pretty much daily.Petey Plane (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Will be working on this article more in the future to get it to gold, because WND may be the purest font of far-right lunacy online (that is able to pull mainstream attention every once in a while, anyway). While not quite reaching conservapedia's pure insanity, it should get the recognition it deserves. Petey Plane (talk) 23:27, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Pink slips[edit]

WND charges people $29.95 to write an angry letter to their congressman. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 20:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm wrong... apparently that money pays for a "pink slip" to every member of the House and Senate. This is absurd in its own way, but not actually a preposterous scam. Even Farah and his crew aren't capable of those sorts of lows. --TheLateGatsby (talk) 21:11, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Racism[edit]

Does anyone here know the history of WND's racism? Were they always wearing it so proudly on their sleeves, or is this a more recent development? PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?. 23:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)