Talk:Weekly World News
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Untitled
- 2 Website?!
- 3 Possible future covers!???
- 4 Relation to Nat'l Enquirer
- 5 Accuracy
- 6 I'm not even bothering with it, but...
- 7 Page 5 Girl
- 8 Just Wondering
- 9 :(
- 10 Overhaul
- 11 Shutting down
- 12 Aren't they continuing the online edition?
- 13 Plagiarism?
- 14 Died
- 15 Fair use rationale for Image:Batchild.jpg
- 16 First sentences issue
- 17 Sorry if this is just me being stupid...
- 18 "in-universe" tag
- 19 Serious Articles
Can anyone confirm that WWN is a contender for the Pulitzer? I was gonna erase that but decided to ask first. -redundancy
Whnoever updated the page cannot write in the English language. All the updated material consists of mangled and often incomprehensible gibberish.220.127.116.11 17:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Whoever creatred this page did a good job. I updated it a bit, going into further detail as to the reoccuring stories featured in the pages of WWN. I'll update it as need be.
Hm, would it make sense if we merged the "Description" section and the "Features" section together? The features are a description after all... —DaemonDivinus 16:03, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps we should not eliminated the description entirely, but simply condense it down to a paragraph or two. —spman
Why not remove the stick from your bum Mr. Superm401 and at least have the chutzpah to post a message on the talk page. While yes, the article does need to be re-edited as has been discussed, we are not by any means listing "every damn story ever published" by WWN, we are simply acknowledging some of the frequent subjects which appear in the pages of WWN with a few specific examples of each. This is important in order for those not familliar with the publication to get a grasp on what specifically it is. I don't see why some people get so up in arms over WWN, it's a joke, it's satire, no different (and far better IMHO) then The Onion. - spman
On July 21st, 2007 it was announced by its parent company American Media that it would suspend publication of both the print and website version of Weekly World News.
According to a report on MSNBC, World News will continue on the internet. Forget it, according to most newspaper and online reports, the website will be taken offline. It's a error on MSNBC's part.
Possible future covers!???
How are the three photos captioned "The first/second/third of three possible future cover [sic] of the Weekly World News" encyclopedic? WWN might spout unmitigated crap, but that doesn't mean we have to when talking about them. If they're covers that have appeared, we should say so, but if they're "possible future" covers, than this is like listing all 250 million US citizens and describing each of them as a "possible future" US president. How absurd is that! Anyway, "cover" should be "covers". JackofOz 01:43, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
- If these have not appeared, what is their copyright status? --Wetman 13:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Relation to Nat'l Enquirer
I remember hearing that the reason the WWN uses a B&W press is that it was the old press used by the National Enquirer. The WWN lauched in 1979, so that may be the case. Since I'm not certain, I'm not adding it to the article. Bobak 00:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is true, but since I'm a primary source, I can't really add it - I don't know of any secondary sources that describe this. The reason why the WWN came into being was because Generoso Pope was moving the Enquirer to a color press, but still had a contract with the B&W printers, so rather than let that facility go to waste, decided to put *something* out with it. That *something* wound up selling well enough to support itself, and the WWN was born. If you look in the archives in Google Books, you can see that the first year or so they have of WWN, it was still basically running Nat'l Enquirer leftovers... not-quite-salacious celebrity scandals, occasional interesting medical stories. It only started getting strange a year or two after that. -grant (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
The Elvis section seems to be portrayed as being accurate, as well as some other sections. All things considered, that should probably be rectified. 18.104.22.168 19:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
The link to the "dragon in a bottle" story says that it was a hoax. It should not be classified under "strange but true." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 00:23, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not even bothering with it, but...
Someone vandalized one point in mentioning "Miss Adventure" and replaced it with "Miss America." --126.96.36.199 19:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
- I fixed it. And if someone is going to vandalize, they could a least check their vandalism for spelling! I also made some minor related corrections, the article could use a lot of editing.188.8.131.52 14:31, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Page 5 Girl
It would be tempting to add that unlike The Sun's Page Three girl, WWN's Page 5 girl is usually...well...you know...kind of a skank, doubtless a deliberate parody of Page Three. 184.108.40.206 14:17, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody believe this crap? 00:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
- Um...no. But it's still fun. Seems the paper has become a parody of itself since the recent changes, though. 220.127.116.11 22:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The article doesn't mention how the paper got stories in the 80s. They trolled the foreign press for horrible translations, or really gullible reporters and rebuilt the outlandish "facts" into their news. SchmuckyTheCat
Although it was I who is largely responsible for this page being expanded into the matter it currently is now, in the wake of the announcement that the publication is coming to an end, I think now is as good a time as any for this article to be completely overhauled and cleaned up. It is rather jumbled and uninformative in its current state, but could make a very good article if someone with more knowledge and skill then I have wished to undertake it.Spman 16:57, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I agree. I do have a rather large collection (perhaps the largest collection [I am currently seeking a position in Guinness) of the Weekly World News. Here's a question, what if we developed a wikiproject for WWN? It certainly would make our goals more defined - having such an outline will be rather helpful. --18.104.22.168 (talk) 13:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
"Suspended"? Does that mean that this is only temporary? Scorpionman 20:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
-My gut feeling is they'll eventually just sell the copyright and some other company will start it up again at some point. Spman 07:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Aren't they continuing the online edition?
- In point, someone had added a cite that referred to that Reuters article, but it was muddled, with people leaving in information that may or may not have superceded it (I can't find either supposed statement, just coverage of it). I've straightened things out, and added a 'current event' tag, in the hopes people will pay attention to the whole of the article when adding new information that may override or contradict other info. Also remember, Wikipedia is the encyclopedia *you* can edit. If you see something, especially in a current story that hasn't been changed, please change it! you can't break it, and we're happy to see new people make an edit or two! --Thespian 04:27, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Although it is cited, portions of the text, especially the background of Eddie Clontz, are lifted directly and without proper attribution from the linked WaPo article. Wonder what else is copied without attribution. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:18, August 23, 2007 (UTC)
- I think that would be a good idea. by the way, do any of you know why they're not making anymore? I really want to know. Im a bell(Don't ask) 00:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- Reality has become almost as weird as the stuff they printed? Seriously, it's just economics; it wasn't popular enough any more. I, for one, will miss it.
- Atlant 17:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
- You know what's ironic? I JUST ordered a subscription right before the last issue. Im a bell(Don't ask) 00:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Batchild.jpg
Image:Batchild.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
First sentences issue
The authors of this article are apparently too stupid to realize that they're writing about a SATIRICAL publication.--Josh —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:01, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if this is just me being stupid...
...but is this magazine serious? Do people believe it, or is it deliberately nonsense? The article doesn't really say; it should be made clear from the start. J Milburn (talk) 19:31, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
- According to the Washington Post article listed at the bottom, some of it was just "weird news", some of it was actual news but embellished, and some of it was just made up. As time went on, it became increasingly fictional. That's consistent with my recollection of it. Too bad it's gone; it was pretty darn funny. I used to have the "Hillary Clinton Adopts Alien Baby" issue; I wish I could find another copy. Afalbrig (talk) 07:18, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Though rare, WWN did on occasion carry serious articles; Some were related to lifestyle (such as staffwriter generated articles on marriage) others actual news; One such was on Necrotizing fasciitis. These (very) rare jems should be acknowledged in some fashion. (A simple version might be to copy the relevant portions of this section and paste them to the page itself).Wikipedia- Best Source Of Information Since The Weekly World News. (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)Andering J REDDSON
- Serious, or at least real, stories weren't rare. The article says that "on occasion" Weekly World News published strange-but-true stories, but those were exceptions. I disagree. I always enjoyed reading the paper and trying to figure out which of the stories and articles in it were entirely made up by WWN staffers, and which were factual (though strange). I'd say at least a quarter to a third of the stories in each paper were factual, or at least printed from real newspapers elsewhere. - Embram (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2014 (UTC)