Talk:National Enquirer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Magazines (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Magazines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of magazines on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
See WikiProject Magazines' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.


If we keep working on this". I just added a paragraph and corrected some spelling and syntax errors. I see real potential here. Hokeman 00:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Despite the praise of the NE in this article, the NE is for whatever reason still not considered by many in Wikipedia to be a reliable source of information. Either this article needs to be significantly modified in order to toe the party line, or some Wikipedians should read their own Wikipedia to learn more about sources before they prejudicially dismiss them. Turly-burly 06:53, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with you Turly-burly. I would invite you to furthur elaborate about NE -- telling about its early history as a scandal sheet, and the large number of libel/defamation suits it has had. The authors who worked on it before weren't necessarily wrong, just incomplete. I would think you would agree, however, that Worthong and I have dramatically improved the article. Hokeman 23:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Oh, wow, yes. I wasn't trying to sound critical of the article. I'm in favor of leaving it the way it is, which is fair without being iconoclastic (i.e. by sounding as if the NE were so reliable as to be the NYTimes). I've noticed that certain people here editing at wikipedia, though, don't seem to want to give the NE any kind of credit, and there's never any good reason other than "The NE isn't a reputable source because I know it isn't". I think this article is correct, and that people would do well to read it (and the article at Slate) to take a fresh look at the facts. Turly-burly 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
This page does have potential, but it needs more citations. There are numerous statements to the fact that the NE has become an established, responsible paper, etc., but there is no appropiate citations for them. I think a way to not only strengthen this article but make more people actually believe that the NE can be a valid news source is if these claims are properly cited. -Kraw Night 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

xmas tree info[edit]

Why was the information removed concerning the christmas tree? This most recent edit looks like vandalism to me...will rv later if no justification is forthcoming. Turly-burly 15:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

    • I reverted back to your prior edition. That was vandalism.--Hokeman 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Actually I believe that the editor made some substantial contributions to the text regarding current changes at the Enquirer, in addition to useful minor edits. The Christmas tree paragraph does interfere with the flow of the text, in that it is "off topic" from the preceding and subsequent paragraphs. While I wouldn't insist on leaving it out, I think it is incorrect to refer to those edits as vandalism. -Jmh123 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • The Christmas Tree was a huge deal in Palm Beach County in the 70's and 80's and it fits right in there between the movement of the paper to Lantana in 1971 and the death of founder Pope in 1988. If people are going to screw around and delete large sections of the encyclopedia then they ought to do it after making meaningful contributions. That way their meaningful, legitimate edits can be left in there. Unfortunately, this editor did not choose to do that and chose to delete the paragraph first. (There was other stuff besides the Christmas Tree in that paragraph.) If they want to go back and re-add the meaningful edits, be my guest. --Hokeman 23:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I do see your logic for placing the tree paragraph as you did. I was only suggesting that the editor did not intend to vandalize the page. Take care. -Jmh123 23:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ETA: I retained the new edits while preserving the tree paragraph. I hope it is acceptable to you. Thanks. -Jmh123 23:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I see your point also. I think those additions that were just added do improve the accuracy; the Enquirer did peak at over 6 million (not 4 million) in the 70s. I'm glad you see my point- about a month ago I went through the article and corrected syntax, grammar, punctuation, spelling - you name it; however, I really liked the content and was very careful not to delete anyones hard work.--Hokeman 00:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


The following article from [1] can be used to verify some of the earlier content about Pope. Just a note here to remind myself (or anyone else) of the link as I have no time right now to do this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmh123 (talkcontribs) 16:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yellow Journalism[edit]

Why is this classified as a supermarket tabloid? It should be officially called yellow journalism. I can think of no better example... —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, they release a thruthful story occasionally, so some stupid people will take them seriously. The fact that they present their news as real tells me that production of The National Enquirer should be shut down. The fact that they present misleading stories that people believe and insist that they told the truth makes them a danger to society. (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Catchphrase / motto / slogan[edit]

Isn't the Enquirer's motto « Because inquiring minds want to know »? (i don't read it, but i've heard it is famously so).
--Jerome Potts (talk) 03:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this article is ludicrously incomplete without a reference to their slogan! I can't tell if it's "Inquiring" (correct spelling) or "Enquiring" and I didn't know "Because" was on the front. I'll try to add it but I'm sure it'll be taken out because I can't find citations. -- Skierpage (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I thought the slogan was spelled "Enquiring minds..." (matching the name of the newspaper) but I see that the article currently uses "Inquiring minds." Can someone find a definitive answer? The National Enquirer no longer uses this slogan, so searching its web site is no help. (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
I didn't have to look any further than the earliest recorded NE page from 1997 at The Internet Archive (aka Wayback Machine). It is in fact spelled "Enquiring"; I'll amend the reference in the article accordingly. Steve Bob (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

"Alleged" no longer applies[edit]

  • Since Edwards admitted to the affair, it is no longer an allegation.
  • The appropriate word to describe the denial of the affair made by Edwards and his staff is "false". patsw (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Done. Some thought should be given to pruning away the suspicions of the Raleigh News-Observer that the story was fraudelent on the part NE. The are now moot. patsw (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Per the above, I removed the speculation on the low res photo as moot. patsw (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Someone wanting the truth about an issue appends the slogan to their demand as a catch phrase.[24]" Is this even intelligible english? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


Considering that the vast majority of American remember the National Enquirer as a tabloid with articles on giant space cows, bigfoot, UFOs, and other incredible and supernatural beings, this article is completely whitewashed. Angry bee (talk) 01:00, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked in the UK/Europe[edit]

In The_National_Enquirer#Noted_stories_and_lawsuits the article states that access to the National Enquirer website is blocked in the UK, yet I can access it successfully (from the UK, through a UK-based ISP, no proxies, and an IP that geo-locates as being in the UK).

Can other people confirm or deny whether it's blocked for them? Eddie Deguello (talk) 09:53, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't access the site from my UK IP LukeSurl t c 12:08, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

My Irish IP is blocked. The claim seems to be accurate. ---Concernedresident's butler Not butter or putter 11:09, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Accessing the website from the UK now returns 'The content of this website is not available in your area.', whatever UK-based IP I do it from. Article changed to reflect this. Eddie Deguello (talk) 14:07, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't access the site from my German IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Same here, cannot acces from germany. I also testes from Lisba/Portugal which did not work either. This large scale blocking should be mentioned in the artice.

The main National Enquirer link now apparently redirects to National Enquirer UK for visitors from the UK. Can anybody else verify this? What happens for visitors from other previously-blocked countries?Eddie Deguello (talk) 08:31, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Three reverts by User:Sososos321 2010-05-02[edit]

On User:Sososos321's talkpage, I explained to him that the present reverts are contra WP:BLP but he has chosen to make three reverts which make him subject to the 3RR rule. --Morenooso (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are the one who is violating 3RR as you already undid another person's edit which I merely reintroduced. Sososos321 (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
Negative, I am a Page Patroller. You really need to read WP:BLP. It does allow poorly sourced edits like this. If another experienced editor had disagreed with my reasoning, I would have been reverted. --Morenooso (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
It comes straight off the Enquirer's main page. That's as good as a source is going to get.Sososos321 (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)
The issue was brought to the attention of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard in this DIFF. --Morenooso (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Title of article[edit]

Why is this article titled "The National Enquirer" when the headline clearly reads "National Enquirer"? --Tenebrae (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no "The". The title of the article should be changed. Pepso2 (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move per request. Appears in keeping with WP:THE. I note that the magazine itself sometimes has the the on its cover and sometimes it does not, e.g., 1 verses 2.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

The National EnquirerNational Enquirer — Neither the paper's logo, nor its website, have a "The" as part of the moniker. --Cybercobra (talk) 04:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

to find a reporter[edit]

Hello I,m not sure if I,m even in the right area of your magazine. However perhaps you could see that it gets to a reporter for me. I have proof and information that a professional sports person who is a cousin to two players of a famous base ball team has been the head of a operation for the past three years which now is letting one of his employees go to prison for along time because he wont pay the fine. If interested in this story please let me know. L — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:304:B36E:A589:25A9:E42E:E071:457D (talk) 23:14, 29 August 2014 (UTC)