Talk:Natural News/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Smear piece

This entire article reads more as a smear piece than an encyclopedic article. The author goes out of his way to describe every “alternative view” out there as lunacy and quackery. True, some are. But this article reads wrong. It is deliberately trying to paint a particular picture, and it ain’t a pretty one, all the less pretty coming from Wikipedia. Im sure this does not meet fairness standards for this site, and I call for an editorial review. K9gardner (talk) 05:58, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's written based on reliable sources, I'm not sure what you mean? -Roxy, the dog. wooF 06:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The article seems very fair to me. Wikipedia is biased toward science. What "alternative views" or "alternative medicine" examples can you provide that aren't lunacy and/or quackery that Natural News covers? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of people worldwide follow Natural News & take it seriously. So by making this article strictly from the viewpoint of "this is fake, no doubt about it" is authoritarian & exclusionary. Who are you to decide source A is "reliable" but source B isn't? Ask CNN or MSNBC and they'll tell you that Fox News and OANN are unreliable. Are you going to declare them fake and lock them down too? Doubt it. You can either be truly fair & open or you can continue to censor independent media you disagree with like Natural News & InfoWars, make them into martyrs, prove them right on mainstream media & tech censorship of Independent Conservative media & strengthen the drive of the literally millions of supporters that follow them on a regular basis. Your move. Yusaki777 (talk) 05:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

People who take Natural News seriously are credulous, poorly-educated dupes. We are being fair to Natural News and its readers, by helping them understand that what they're reading is a batch of nonsense lies. If you choose to leave Wikipedia because we adhere to reliable sources, nobody will miss you. Good day, sir. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:19, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

it is people like you who will follow the "reliable sources" (and their dogmas) to the end of the earth simply because they are the "reliable sources" counted on to decide who is fake news, and therefore they cannot be and never will be fake news until they themselves call themselves fake news. So who is the poorly-educated dupe, really, with blind reliance? If your civilization ever collapses because of the dogmatic world view you harbor, thanks to your faith in whatever the so-called "reliable sources" peddle, nobody will miss you either. Mindless drone. --2600:1002:B000:7F1C:95D7:84EE:FE7A:4135 (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Oh yes. When our civilization collapses because of the editorial standards of an online encyclopedia, we sure will have egg on our face. This is of course a frequent and serious matter of discussion in the halls of the United Nations. The five horsemen of the apocalypse: pestilence, war, famine, death and Wikipedia standards for sourcing. GMG^talk 20:18, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof does have a point. Those who reject our use of reliable sources are doing us a favor: by leaving. Contrary to extremist belief, we do not decide which verifiable facts are acceptable, nor do we assume everything reported by sources we consider reliable true, and everything by sources we consider unreliable false, although journalistic ethics dictate that we should stick to reliable sources only. All I am seeing here is ranting against corrupt defamers like us who enjoy nothing more than demonizing everyone that disagrees with them, and why should we believe it if they cannot even provide evidence? WP:NPOV dictates that we should refer to Natural News as pseudoscientific and fake news. GaɱingFørFuɲ³⁶⁵ 06:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry... information found on Wiki is by definition supposed to be fair and neutral by objective standards. One cannot call a potentially libelous article fair just because one believes strongly in a view. The entirety of this article would NEVER pass journalistic standards. It needs heavy revision or needs to be removed. Pixl8 (talk) 04:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Jan 19, 2020 Pixl8

What changes would you suggest? - Bilby (talk) 04:53, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Generalized bitching is never persuasive, Pixl8. If you want to make changes to the article, then be very specific about what you want to remove, and what you want to add. Provide references to high quality reliable sources supporting those changes, too. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:01, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

Easy there @Cullen328:. Getting a little spicy. Also your ping probably didn't go through, because this user was renamed in 2009, but never changed their signature. GMG^talk 15:18, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

First sentence/lead

First sentence:

"Natural News (formerly NewsTarget, which is now a separate sister site) is a conspiracy theory and fake news website[2] that sells various dietary supplements, and promotes alternative medicine, controversial nutrition and health claims,[3] fake news,[4][5][6] and various conspiracy theories,[7] such as "chemtrails",[2] chemophobic claims (including the purported dangers of fluoride in drinking water,[8] anti-perspirants, laundry detergent, monosodium glutamate, aspartame), and purported health problems caused by allegedly "toxic" ingredients in vaccines,[3][2] including the now-discredited link to autism.[9]"

This is long as a Shakespeare-play, tells us that NN is a fake news website that promotes fake news, and brings up stuff like chemtrails that are not mentioned in the body of the article. We can do better. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:41, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Statemente above, "fake news website" is unsupportable, non-neutral. The term fake news cannot even by quantified... it is a term used by people with a strong opposition to another viewpoint. At the very least, point out a specific statement or article and then provide indisputable proof that statement is false. On a similar note, using the term "chemophobic" is a leading term... be neutral and fair. Pixl8 (talk) 04:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC) Jan 19,2020 Pixl8

"fake news" is not anywhere in the referenced Atlantic article that is referenced with [2], please correct your fake "fake news" citation.73.96.106.1 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Sources 2, 5, 6 and 7 explicitly support it. Guy (help!) 13:43, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed the sources for notes [2] [5] and [6] as suggested. They don't provide a single strand of evidence that Natural News is "fake news". This term "fake news" has been used as a weapon by both the left and the right to discredit the other and so now really does not mean anything at all. Lastly, just because ABC News and Snopes have been "appointed" as arbiters of what constitutes "fake news" does not make it so. Like all too many people and organizations, mainstream media is very liberal (this is not an insult or an opinion... it is a fact that the MMM would attest to... and have for years) so they alone cannot objectively decide what is "fake" and what is not. Also... chemtrails are not a conspiracy theory... they are a published fact... These are old sources and only two of dozens that can be found. Four months ago I read a couple of articles that detailed government agencies now wanting to put additional particulates in the air to diminish sunlight. Chemtrails are a reality and so that reference in this article needs to be amended. "chemophobic" is a leading word... and carries all the same unsupportable negativity of "fake news". What does that word even mean?... someone is afraid of chemicals? Drop that word and write objectively!

Finally the statement "now discredited link to autism" also needs to be removed... the debate continues...

Pixl8 (talk) 17:06, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

No. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 17:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's article for chemtrails is Chemtrail conspiracy theory, as that is what we collectively believe is supported by reliable sources. If you want to change the site's stance on that issue, you can join the handful of others on the talk page of that article. And yes, you managed to guess correctly what "chemophobia" means (you could've just clicked the link). Some people are afraid of anything called a chemical because they don't understand the word, and that's a primary driver of chemtrail fears. The same goes for vaccines and autism; if you want to fight that fight, you'll need to take it up on the main page for that topic. The facts are that there was a single paper claiming a link in 1998, which was then entirely discredited as fraud. The links you just gave are merely calling for further investigation to see if there is a link. Nothing thus far has ever creditably proven a link (as it even says in your references). So, for an article like this that is only mentioning the topic in passing, "now discredited link to autism" is quite an accurate summary. Maybe (doubtfully) a link will one day be established and we would amend this. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Pixl8, the term "fake news" has been used by the right as a way to discredit reality-based reporting, and by the left to describe, well, fake news. Natural News is the latter type. "News" that is very often fake. Guy (help!) 21:59, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 25 July 2020

This is a disgrace. Mike Adams is a honourable man and does good work. If this false claim about his site Natural News being fake news is not changed, i will cease to use Wikipedia and stop my donations. (Redacted) 2A02:1811:4D0F:C900:7C33:864F:298B:568F (talk) 12:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

See above. We are all volunteers. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If your "donations" are linked to specific demands about content, they are not donations, they are bribes. We don't take those. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Fake news label is politically biased and not truthful

Sources claim that Google removed the site for fake news without any evidence but Google themselves said it wasn't removed for fake news https://searchengineland.com/natural-news-not-banned-google-fake-news-269998 . Meanwhile editors here have restored the term "fake news" in spite of the facts showing otherwise! That isn't a neutral point of view, that is ignoring evidence which contradicts your bias!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rritoch (talk • contribs) 14:13, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

The article doesn't say the site was removed for promoting fake news. The article describes the website as a fake news website because that's how multiple neutral reliable sources describe it. Every other descriptor of the website is sourced to a reliable source. If you have reliable sources which contradict these descriptions, list them here and we will discuss. Otherwise, this page is not a forum for your opinions about things. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:45, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 August 2020

Natural News is very far away from being a right-wing/conspiracy network. It presents verifiable facts which can be independently checked. Just because someone says something which goes against the current political climate does not mean it is wrong. This is an example of the CANCEL-CULTURE, and needs to be addressed by Wikipedia if you care at all about 'truth to power'. Whoever placed their summation of NaturalNews.com is running on the agenda and NOT the facts. Do you wish to publish false information and make this freely available? If so, you are guilty of the very thing NaturalNews is being accused of. Obviously MONSANTO does not appreciate condemnation, but that is what they deserve, for peddling their poisons to an unsuspecting & often ignorant public, whether it's Ready-Round-up or GMO's. I suggest you amend the entry in question by posting this immediately above it. Then allow the reader to decide by checking content for themselves. Kai Jansen (talk) 16:13, 1 August 2020 (UTC)

Naw. We dont do bull. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 16:22, 1 August 2020 (UTC).

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Natureium (talk) 00:56, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit Request on 1 November 2020

Natural News Labs is highly relevant to this page. It is also known as Consumer Wellness Choice Labs. CWC Labs was ISO 17025 accredited by PJLA Testing. This makes a case for the legitimacy of results published on Natural News in the areas specifically related to the areas of aqueous heavy metals, heavy metals in food and cannabinoids in hemp products. Full results of Mike Adams' testing of foods are published in his 2016 book Food Forensics which also bears a mention in the article and would bring the article more in line with elucidating a neutral point of view. --Due Weight (talk) 04:04, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Mike Adams' book and CWC Labs are fringe. Besides him and his laboratories being discredited, we go with what the mainstream sources say about them in their judgement. FreeMediaKid! 08:32, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Inaccurate claim

"the site has been delisted and blocked from Google Search"

It is the first result when I google "Natural News."

https://www.google.com/search?q=natural+news&oq=natu&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i60j69i65l3j69i60l2.2846j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

24.0.176.243 (talk) 08:22, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The part you quote isn't strictly incorrect. I believe the text is referring to the fact that the site had been blocked by Google, YouTube and Facebook, but was reinstated (see end of Natural_News#Criticism_and_controversies section). The rest of the statement you refer to wasn't sourced, so I removed it all to let the fuller, sourced explanation stand. TheFeds 12:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

unable to make corrections

Too many "protected" pages with false info on Wikipedia. How can they be edited and who is able to? Snowwhite1984 (talk) 02:40, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Snowwhite1984, the page is semi protected because of persistent disruptive and POV editing. But that should not block you from editing. The changes you made so far are incorrect and unsourced. You need to discuss them here first and gain consensus. Also, please read past discussions on this talk page. --McSly (talk) 03:05, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Unfounded Statements

I believe this article needs revision. It contains a significant amount of bias and unfounded defamatory statements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8080:7B0A:57B4:C4D9:D87C:EAAB:8747 (talk) 14:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm not seeing this. Can you be more specific? — Newslinger talk 23:00, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

This article has been hijacked by unaccountable editors.

ADD BRIGHT RED LETTERS AT THE TOP OF THIS ARTICLE - "THIS ARTICLE VIOLATES OUR STANDARDS OF TRUTH AND DECENCY!"

Please reconsider simply removing all articles, such as this one, with which you do not agree - it's your website! Be honest and forthright, like Twitter and Facebook, and just remove the article "for whatever reason" you like, rather than publish a basterdized article such as this one. Nobody wants this article as it is, take a poll of your readers and find out. Obviously Nazi-style shaming propaganda and name calling are used in this article - the current article is not suitable for a free society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8a00:1090:2c89:2b6c:3d57:36e1 (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The statements in this article are adequately supported by reliable sources. Neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic". If you have located reliable sources that provide additional information, feel free to share them. — Newslinger talk 12:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Fact-checking vs their own editor

Ha Ha - whoever is creating this trash should be denied access to Wikipedia forever. Who has fact-checked this nonsense? Why not ask the editor of Natural News to provide true and accurate information??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:8A00:1090:6C54:CC26:D47:DAF4 (talk) 21:33, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

We need to use sources independent of Natural News. The independent sources do not describe it favourably, and generally the owner of the site would have a conflict of interest leaving them to describe it in overly positive terms. - Bilby (talk) 00:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not ask the editor of Natural News to provide true and accurate information Because providing that is not a thing Natural News is capable of or willing to do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2021

Natural News has been named by Ars Technica (at: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/10/disinformation-guru-hacker-x-names-his-employer-naturalnews-com/) as the employer for Robert Willis who was earlier reported to be behind the massive disinformation campaign to elect Trump (https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/10/hacker-x-the-american-who-built-a-pro-trump-fake-news-empire-unmasks-himself/). There should be a reference to the corresponding paragraph in Robert Willis's page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Willis_(hacker)#Misinformation). 1.64.54.232 (talk) 07:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

That he was employed by NN is in the lead at Robert Willis (hacker) already. This request should have been at the talk page for that article. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 07:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

This is a request to update the article for NN to contain more detail about the company's alleged involvement in a massive disinformation campaign to elect Donald Trump. Exactly that Willis was employed by NN is in the lead at Robert Willis (hacker) already. -1.64.54.232 (talk) 07:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)