Websites: Computing Stub‑class

This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Computing.

Skepticism Stub‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles 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.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

I will be editing this page. Please leave any suggestions for additions or citations. Toddo0254 (talk) 03:27, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is an absolute mess. I have flagged it for neutrality because there are clear bias issues in terms of information and language. I will be substantially editing this page to help ensure a neutral point of view.

Specific examples of bias:

“ antivaccinationist Jon Rappoport”

This is completely unsourced, and Rappoport’s own Wikipedia page does not describe him as such. Why should he be singled out as an antivaccinationist on NaturalNews’ page, especially over other descriptors (e.g., journalist or investigative reporter)?

“Shawn Lawrence Otto mentions the site - specifically its discussion of the Vioxx controversy — in his list of references in his book Fool Me Twice, and New York Times reporter Christopher Kelly has mentioned Adams' endorsement of Jim Marrs' books.[2]”

Fool Me Twice is not a notable book; why is this in the lead about NaturalNews? Adams does not specifically endorse Marrs’ books in the sourced article; all he says is that Marrs’ books are well-researched and he thinks that Marrs would be more successful self-publishing. Neither of these things can be fairly described as endorsement (i.e., neither of them say you should buy or read Jim Marrs’ books).

Further, this is not an article about Mike Adams’ personal work.

“Steven Novella characterises Adams as "a dangerous conspiracy-mongering crank.”

As a medical adviser for QuackWatch, an organization/website that regularly criticizes Adams, Novella has a clear conflict of interest. wp:notreliable

“This article by Adams was met with criticism by David Gorski, who called it "vile" and noted that Adams had written similarly themed articles about the death of Patrick Swayze, Michael Jackson, Tony Snow, and Tim Russert.”

Why does David Gorski’s opinion of a single article merit inclusion in an encyclopedia? I happen to agree that the article was in poor taste, but Gorski is a science blogger with a relatively small podium. The fact an author of a science blog does not like a particular article is not notable or encyclopedic information.

Specific examples of bad copywriting:

“Michael Allen "Mike" Adams, (born 1969) the self-styled "Health Ranger", is the founder and owner of NaturalNews.”

Self-styled is a loaded term. Any number of people in the public eye develop monikers. No need to use loaded language. wp:alleged wp:claim Loaded language

“According to his own website his interest in alternative nutrition was sparked by developing type II diabetes at the age of 30 and "completely curing" himself using natural remedies.”

Interests are not “sparked.” Wikipedia articles should not contain euphemisms. wp:euphemism

“Adams asserted that "Countless millions of women carry the BRCA1 gene and never express breast cancer because they lead healthy, anti-cancer lifestyles based on smart nutrition, exercise, sensible sunlight exposure and avoidance of cancer-causing chemicals." Thus, he argues that her mastectomy was unnecessary.”

The source goes to a page on NaturalNews that does not mention Jolie or her mastectomy.

I assume this is the correct source:

http://www.naturalnews.com/040334_Angelina_Jolie_double_mastectomy_breast_cancer_prevention.html

Adams does not argue that her mastectomy was unnecessary in this article. To say so is extrapolation and editorialization. wp:editorial

“This influence has led peer-reviewed papers to actually mention it, for example,”

“Actually” implies that it is somehow surprising that NaturalNews would be commented upon. Loaded Language wp:neutrality wp:impartial

If anyone is interested in collaborating on this page, I'll be working on cleaning this up. I will remove the neutrality flag when the article has been substantially edited. News Team Assemble ^[!!!] 03:49, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't looked at this in any detail, but it sounds likes there's work to do. However, care needs to be taken since WP:FRINGE applies here and so WP:PARITY modifies the norml sourcing requirements a bit. David Gorski's opinions in his field, for example, are useful in the context of these guidelines. Alexbrn ^{talk|contribs|COI} 05:43, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Alex's comments, note that WP does not seek to be unbiased it seeks to be WP:NEUTRAL, which is not the same concept. Neutrality in WP's context is a bias towards reliable sources and that means presenting information in proportion to its prominence in said sources; if the majority of information is critical then our article will be critical. Secondly, that a source is critical of X does not mean that the source has a COI and isn't suitable for our purposes. For example, virtually every scientific publication in the world criticizes any and all anti-vaccination, flat earth, Intelligent design, etc., movements/groups if they raise to a level of public awareness that requires they be criticized - to say that such sources cannot be used because they criticize belies the purpose of our sourcing requirements. I have more comments but tbh WP's talk pages are not suited well to covering so many points in a single section. I suggest you make your edits individually rather than making large changes at once and then following WP:BRD if they're reverted by starting a new discussion for each separate topic/edit. N^oformation ^Talk 09:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with NewsTeamAssemble in that this article is rather disorganized. This is why: I originally submitted it to AFC, but it got rejected, so I dumped every reference I could find into the article in an effort to try to establish notability. Indeed, NTA is probably right that the Shawn Lawrence Otto stuff doesn't belong in the lead, and may not belong in the article at all. However, this article should not be balanced if the evidence isn't balanced, that is if the evidence suggests that Mike Adams is usually wrong (as when he claimed that vaccines don't work at all) then the article should reflect this. Also, I will remove the statements that NTA has referred to as editorializing. Jinkinson (talk) 01:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Alexbrn, Noformation, Jinkinson, I really appreciate your input. I'm just trying to clean up the article to meet WP neutrality guidelines. I'll come to the talk page with my edits. Thanks for your interest! News Team Assemble ^[!!!] 00:21, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See my first post in this heading, I removed the loaded language, euphemisms and unsourced/unreliably sourced material. Thanks! News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 00:22, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edits, as I doubt that you will find any support for them. Thanks! --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 01:12, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you reviewed my initial comments about this article? As I've explained in my previous comments, I'm complying with WP guidelines about using loaded language, euphemisms and removing unsourced/unreliably sourced material. These edits were not vandalism. Thanks! News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 01:55, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed both your edits and your comments here. I am in complete agreement with Roxy the dog's revert. If you wish to rephrase certain statements, go ahead, but I would ask that you propose them individually here on the talk page first because of the multiple intersecting fringe/pseudoscience issues, and wait for some consensus to emerge before implementing them in the article. It will be slow going, I expect, but certainly doable. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:36, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks UseTheCommandLine. I proposed all the edits at one time on this page for why I flagged the article. I can break them down further if this better suits community consensus. I really wasn't trying to vandalize this page, just trying to clean up and remove material that is not encyclopedic and about NaturalNews, sourced properly, or not neutral. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 03:48, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now that ten days has passed without any serious disagreement over the neutrality of the article, could I suggest that the neutrality flag be removed? --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the flag. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 23:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What should it be? - I prefer self-styled - but I'm going nowhere near 3RR. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 21:07, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Either is fine by me, they mean the same - David Gerard (talk) 21:32, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“antivaccinationist Jon Rappoport”

This is completely unsourced, and Rappoport’s own Wikipedia page does not describe him as such. Why should he be singled out as an antivaccinationist on NaturalNews’ page, especially over other descriptors (e.g., journalist or investigative reporter)? Thanks for your input. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 01:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of articles by Rappoport: [1][2] He writes against vaccines a lot - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 15 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing this sentence:

“Shawn Lawrence Otto mentions the site - specifically its discussion of the Vioxx controversy — in his list of references in his book Fool Me Twice, and New York Times reporter Christopher Kelly has mentioned Adams' endorsement of Jim Marrs' books.[2]”

Fool Me Twice is not a notable book; why is this in the lead about NaturalNews? Adams does not specifically endorse Marrs’ books in the sourced article; all he says is that Marrs’ books are well-researched and he thinks that Marrs would be more successful self-publishing. Neither of these things can be fairly described as endorsement (i.e., neither of them say you should buy or read Jim Marrs’ books). Further, this is not an article about Mike Adams’ personal work. Thanks for your input. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 01:28, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is an article about the website created and run by Mike Adams. As such, the Otto sentence is suitably pertinent. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 05:57, 16 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Should every thing ever said about NaturalNews be included in the article? It's trivia. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 12:54, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Should every thing ever said ..." My answer to that is no. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 13:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least, the sentence should not be in the lede. I'm moving it to the Criticism section. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 12:25, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

“This article by Adams was met with criticism by David Gorski, who called it "vile" and noted that Adams had written similarly themed articles about the death of Patrick Swayze, Michael Jackson, Tony Snow, and Tim Russert.”

Why does David Gorski’s opinion of a single article merit inclusion in an encyclopedia? I happen to agree that the article was in poor taste, but Gorski is a science blogger with a relatively small podium. The fact an author of a science blog does not like a particular article is not notable or encyclopedic information. News Team Assemble!^[talk?] 12:30, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]