Talk:Natural News/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

"Self-Styled" or "Self-Described"

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)

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

Neutrality flag/Article rewrite

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:

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

Proposed edit

“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)

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

Proposed edit

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

Proposed edit

“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)

You should indent your comments using a colon - I have done that for you - if you want to comment here after me, you should use three colons.

To answer your question, Gorski's comment is particularly worthy of inclusion because he is a surgical oncologist, Professor of surgery at Wayne State University, and a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute, specializing in breast cancer surgery. --Roxy the dog (quack quack) 13:14, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Recent edits by Michael0156

Michael0156, who is notorious on YouTube as an anti-vaccine troll, has recently and repeatedly tried to turn this article into a pro-NaturalNews puff piece, and has removed the entire criticism section as well as all mentions of the phrase "anti-vaccine." I would like to know what should be done about him and his edits to this page. Should we go to WP:ANEW? Jinkinson talk to me 15:06, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

He has received three warnings and told to discuss and not repeat his actions. If he continues, he should be reported. Otherwise just revert. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:10, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Well, he did it again and I have reverted his edits. I am therefore starting a new report at ANEW about him. Jinkinson talk to me 09:42, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Far from trying to turn the article in a "Puff piece" I have simply changed an attack article against Natural News into something simply factual. The author(s) of the biased article leave out pertinent information (such as Joseph Mercola & Russel Blaylock being doctors, an obvious attempt to discredit natural news by association with "ordinary" uncredentialled people).

Obviously Jinkinson is not open to discussion as he has personally attacked me calling me "notorious" & "an anti-vaccine troll" for my posts on youtube (I consider this behavior stalking)... junkinson must have been on the losing end of some discussions there to have such a vehement opinion about me and lie about my posts on youtube.

Far from being anti-vaccine I have repeatedly stated the only way to partially protect those that can't be vaccinated is through herd immunity, the rest of us getting vaccinated... that is a pro-vaccine position. That I emphasize we must reduce the number of children injured by making vaccines safer and properly screening all vaccinees to find kids with immune problems or sensitivities to vaccine toxins BEFORE vaccination is logical & supported by vaccine manufacturers. for calling for such screening Jinkinson calls me a "notorous anti vaccine troll" here, in front of the entire Wikipedia nation, brazen and unapologetic.

Jinkinson is obviously biased in this matter and is supporting an article that is simply distortion and/or lies about the Natural News website, mixed in with some truth in an attempt to make the lies/distortions seem credible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michael0156 (talk • contribs) 10:18, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

• Michael, your edit was a complete whitewash of this article, removing well-sourced criticisms. Jinkinson and Brangifer were completely correct in reverting your deletions/edits (which also introduced incorrect wikilinks, by the way). Please discuss any proposed changes here on this talk page to obtain a consensus firs, before editing the article again. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Michael0156 has been indef-blocked for disruptive editing and therefore will not be tampering with this article anymore. So we have no need to worry about his removal of criticisms of this article. [3] Jinkinson talk to me 13:35, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

blogs

Why use blogs as sources on this page when you could use actual news articles? I find this to be an attack piece IMHO. Make the point that the site is not considered reliable and move on. The stuff about wretchedness and vileness wasn't helpful to me as a reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.12.7.166 (talk) 07:20, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Editing

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

can you please let me make a mike adams wiki article about him without being deleted for no reason — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thephil12312 (talk • contribs) 02:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

References

I have formatted the references uniformly (lastname, firstname, date in full numeric form, etc.) using templates. I have added all the missing info I could find and corrected several titles. - - MrBill3 (talk) 07:28, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you —Tom Morris (talk) 07:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Founder Section

Hey everyone, reading through this article I noticed some things about the “Founder” section that could be fixed. I feel as though such a huge focus on the founder of NaturalNews draws attention away from the actual website. I do think that it’s important to have a section for him, but maybe not in such detail. I feel as though the second and third paragraphs should be removed. The lede talks about how NaturalNews supports conspiracy theories and alternative medicine; is it not redundant to say it again when talking about the founder? I figured that it is implied the founder supports the same ideals the website, and we could do without those last two paragraphs. Adamh4 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

NaturalNews pretty much is a reflection of Adams views, it is under his control. There more or less is no 'actual website' absent Adams. So the section is appropriate. Also the body of an article is supposed to have the details of what is summarized in the lede so it seems appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

While I understand the website is a reflection of his views, the article is still about NaturalNews specifically; not Mike Adams. If his views are the same as NaturalNew’s views, wouldn’t we include most of the things in the second and third paragraph in a section about the company, such as the “History” section? That way we can take away from the distraction of the article focusing on the man who founded the website as opposed to the website itself; after all, this is a NaturalNews WP page.

Furthermore, you say that what is included in the second and third paragraph is necessary because the article should reflect what is said in the lede. But the thing is, none of those claims such as “It is dedicated to alternative medicine and various conspiracy theories, such as "chemtrails",[2] the alleged dangers of fluoride in drinking water, (as well as those of monosodium glutamate and aspartame) and alleged health problems caused by "toxic" ingredients in vaccines, including the now-discredited link to autism” are even sourced, except for“chemtrails.” In the “Founder” section, none of this is sourced “Adams is an AIDS denialist, a 9/11 truther, a birther and endorses conspiracy theories surrounding the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. He has endorsed Burzynski: Cancer Is Serious Business, a movie about Stanislaw Burzynski.” These are incredibly powerful claims. We can’t have them in the article without proof of them being real. They should be removed. Adamh4 (talk) 17:56, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

References to Adams' statements supporting these claims added - David Gerard (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I have changed several references to secondary sources instead of primary ones. As above references have been added for the claims. Of note is the source which says, "'Mike Adams' (who is NaturalNews)." (Carroll 2010). This should pretty much resolve the objections. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:39, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

You also removed a few in error, e.g. the 9/11 truther reference - please check over - David Gerard (talk) 07:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually NaturalNews changed the content at that url. I have provided an archive link to the original story. Thanks for looking the article over. If you see anything else let me know. - - MrBill3 (talk) 11:50, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Cheers :-) Secondary sources would be good as well, but given the claim is "Adams believes X", I think citations of his own words back such statements up, as Adamh4 quite correctly asked - David Gerard (talk) 13:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Hey David Gerard, thanks so much for taking my comments into account and adding sources to those claims! I wasn’t sure how accurate they all were because they were unsourced, but now that they are I understand more clearly where the claims are coming from. I still am a bit confused though, because a couple of those sources are primary, and WP:PS states “Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.” Maybe we should continue to look for some more sources to add on to those claims, just to clear up any sort of confusion?

Also, still regarding the founder section, there was something else I noticed that might need some work. There are a lot of claims about his conspiracy views, which have been previously argued as relevant to the article. But if we are providing information about Mike Adams because he is the founder, therefore relevant, shoudn’t we include his more positive actions as well? I feel as though this quote here could be paraphrased and added. “Mike has also founded a non-profit organization, The Consumer Well Consumer Wellness Center, an online retail center, Better Life Goods, and the popular publishing company, Truth Publishing.” (www.NaturalNews.com/Index-Media.htlm) There have been some disputes about the neutrality of this article, maybe including this sort of information could clear it up! Adamh4 (talk) 20:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I haven't received a response for my most recent proposal, so I'm going to go ahead and add in the information about Mike Adams (his founding of Consumer Wellness Center, Better Life Goods, and Truth Publishing.) If anyone has comments on the edits, feel free to ping me. Adamh4 (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

We need independents secondary sourcing establishing this notable to include such information. We need to focus on the website here, not the founder. Yobol (talk) 19:52, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the entire conversation above before reverting my edits and commenting? We have already discussed the focus of the page as well as the issue of primary sources being used. The information that was added was necessary to the "Founder" section and belongs there. If you think that the use of a primary source is enough to revert the edits I made, you should be consistent and remove all other statements made that are linked with primary sources. Otherwise, I will put my edits back the way they were. Adamh4 (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I have no problem with a Founder section, but we should focus on how the founder's role with the website (i.e. its views as produced on the website or his apparent fraudulent attempt to promote his web presence); it should not focus on issues that are completely independent of the website. Use of primary sources to characterize his views would probably be better from secondary sources but are acceptable for his views; use of primary sources to promote his organizations of dubious notability is probably not acceptable. Certainly if these organizations are important, you can find independent sources for them? Yobol (talk) 20:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see where you're coming from. Here is a secondary source that lists the three things he founded in addition to Natural News -- is this source acceptable? [[4]] Adamh4 (talk) 20:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Not really. That is basically another self published website. See WP:RS for what would be considered a reliable source (i.e. newspaper reports, etc). Yobol (talk) 20:55, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Fair enough. Here is a source that says he is the executive director of Consumer Wellness Center, this one should work, correct? [[5]] Adamh4 (talk) 21:04, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I see no indication that this is a source that has a reputation for fact checking that would make it a WP:RS. Like I said, are there no high quality secondary sources like newspapers that discuss this? If not, then it does not belong here. Yobol (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This entire article is an embarrassing, unencyclopedic axe-grinding soapbox rant

I consider NaturalNews to be one of the most appalling things ever to have spawned from the mind of man, and can't even think of words harsh enough to do its founder justice. Nonetheless, this article is a joke, and frankly undermines Wikipedia's credibility. I showed it to six people in my office, three of whom hate NaturalNews just as much as I do, and three others of whom have never heard of it. ALL SIX told me, unprompted, that they were surprised at how vitriolic and agenda-driven this Wikipedia article seemed to be, making comments such as "isn't Wikipedia supposed to be objective", etc. Now, obviously, there's no way to write an article about NaturalNews without expressing in some way that the site is a festering, pustule-laden catastrophe of paranoiac brain-vomit, so I'm not saying that any of the more significant negative assertions should be removed, and I'm certainly not saying positive counterpoint should be added to balance them out. But the actual language needs a top-to-bottom rewrite (this article must set a Wikipedia-wide record for the blatant and totally unrestrained use of extraneous emotionally judgmental descriptive phrases), and a lot of the totally gratuitously non-notable swipes at various irrelevant trivia need to go.

Particularly disturbing (and amusingly ironic) is that, in the authorial zeal to cram as much white-hot hatred into this article as possible, such little care was taken to write clearly and objectively that important scientific facts are being miscommunicated by this article itself! To name just one example (of many), CT scans do cause cancer. No one of any significance ever disputes this, with the only disagreements being over the extent of the problem, as is amusingly perfectly well documented in the Wikipedia article on CT scans itself. Meanwhile, the casual reader of this article would come away thinking that concerns about the safety of CT scans are equivalent to believing in chemtrails. I'm not going to bother actually trying to improve, edit, or tag the article, because as far as I can tell there's a pretty well-entrenched cabal of you here dedicating yourselves to ensuring that the article won't be weakened of its delicious, delicious hatred, and I'm sure I'd be reverted as a vandal or some such. Hopefully, someone with more free time than I have will eventually see this spiel, recognize the truth in it, and make at least some small progress toward bringing this article to a presentable state.

Then again, maybe an article about NaturalNews doesn't deserve to be presentable anyway. Oh well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.146.28 (talk) 19:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Would you like a banana? -Roxy the dog (resonate) 22:27, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I've found that sometimes the best way to call attention to unabashed shit-flinging is to unabashedly fling shit at it. I will take you up on that banana, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.146.28 (talk • contribs) 11 April 2014 22:43 (UTC

dude, it's Wikipedia, what would you expect from this site? Fortunately Wikipedia has a very well-known reputation as being a joke for serious matters like medical issue and is a great source if you want to find out something like when did Elton John's Blue Moves get released and what position did it chart at. Taking medical advice? No so much. this site will never be considered credible, so don't lose any sleep on this entry herein.Dobyblue (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

this section made me laugh out loud. thanks for that. and edited the lead. Jytdog (talk) 04:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

while i do not believe in the politically motivated 'conspiracy theories' such as those circulating about 9/11 and others, i do feel, however, that there is much beneficial information posted on Natural News. it is shocking that Wikipedia has chosen to single Mr. Adams and Natural News out as a scapegoat for the millions of people opposed to 'conventional medicine and science'. i, personally, agree with much of Natural News, and applaud its early exposure to such controversial topics such as toxins in the food chain, GMO's, alternative medicine and nutritional options to medications, and additional challenges to the all pervasive pharmaceutical frenzy that has taken hold in this country and threatens the world. i assume that the attacks on Mr. Adams are mainly due to the fact that he challenges the self-appointed supremacy of Big Pharma and the industries that promote drugs as the only weapon against the human condition .... i suggest that Wikipedia really research who are the authors of this Wikipedia page to investigate what their interests are, and if Natural News, with it's large readership, can possibly be considered a threat. my take is, they are frightened by Mr. Adam's potential influence in promoting drugless and self help remedies, and have used the Wikipedia platform to express those views. Please don't let them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shana18 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia stands solidly with the scientific consensus in matters related to health. Please read WP:FRINGE, which is an article for Wikipedia editors, describing how we deal with views on health outside of the mainstream. Jytdog (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

"and alleged health problems caused by "toxic" ingredients in vaccines" Alleged? Really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.143.223.88 (talk) 15:56, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is WP:NOTFORUM - if you have something to say about improving this article, please state it. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 16:28, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

NN's Godwin

Quoting German Government

I respond to Jytdog's request to start a discussion on recent edits. There is now stated that Adams claims that his controversial quote is taken from the German government. I argue that this sentence is unsourced. Yes, it has a source, but the source on discovermagazine.com does not include anything about this quote coming from the German Government. Which is logical given that the article on discovermagazine was written before Adams added his disclaimer. MrBill3 has argued that it is necessary for the context to know that Adams took his claim from the German Government. I beg to differ. I don't see why that would make it any different. Yes, it is context, but I don't see it as a particular relevant context. An then there is the issue of reliability of this claim as it is very questionable whether the claim has any truth to it. I think I can safely say that Mike Adams is not particularly seen as a reputable source himself judging from how the scientific community and reputable media outlets have discredited him. Even referencing the 'German Governemnt' is a needle in a haystack. It is not verifiable at all. Considering that it is not particularly relevant (or necessary) as a context, and given that the source is unverifiable and the reliablity questionable I would suggest to not add it. If one does stick to adding it, please provide a source for the statement that he claimed that he quoted the german government. The current source does not do that. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(this comment was an "edit conflict" in that I didn't see comment above when I wrote this and had created a new section, which I have now removed) OK, so Adams did an outrageous thing as per this. Our job at Wikipedia is not to express outrage, or to be a tabloid and record the controversy blow by blow. Rather, we note that it happened, dispassionately. So please refrain from blowing this up and getting into all the "he said, she said" business around this, and let's just stick to the facts. We are having a little dispute over my addition that Adams attributed the "go kill them" quote to the German government - he claimed it came from them. This does give him a very thin fig leaf... it would have been an entirely different matter if he had just included that statement in his voice. he did set it in bold, and he did describe "Monsanto collaborators" as committing "heinous crimes against humanity" in his own voice - the exact same words that "go kill them" quote uses to describe the Nazis. So his ugly action is very clear. btw, I am not at all sure that the attribution is true. If anybody finds a reliable source that the "go kill them" quote is not from the German government I would be very open to including that. (i note that it is hard to prove a negative) But the facts of what Adams wrote are clear here, as is its ugliness, without resorting to descriptive hyperbole or too much detail. happy to discuss. Jytdog (talk) 20:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC) (striking statement I no longer stand by Jytdog (talk) 21:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC))

actually I went back and looked at the first Discover article, here and I acknowledge that I misremembered. What Adams wrote was: "This official ceremony sends a message to the world, and that official message from the nation of Germany to the rest of the world says that (ugly bolded statement here)". This is a weird phrasing - basically I take this as Adams saying "here is the message I take away from the ceremony". Which is very far from claiming that the statement actually came from the German gov't - Adams did not do that and I was wrong to say he did. Thanks for catching my mistake, Timelezz, and thanks for coming to Talk! Jytdog (talk) 21:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that The Genetic Literacy Project article here (currently ref 20 Entine and Raeburn 2014) now contains, "NOTE: The GLP has been able to confirm that Adams is indeed the mastermind and financier behind the Monsanto Collaborator’s website." Although I agree WP should avoid tabloid journalism the article also mentions Adams is "facing multiple investigations from law enforcement officials, including the FBI" this would seem to make the incident substantially noteworthy. As there is no deadline perhaps some development of the issue over time will lead to coverage that will support additional content better. A strong second to the thanks for engaging on talk. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:23, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

yep the people behind the monsanto collaborators website is still at the level of he said/she said... i agree we wait to see if further information arises. And Jon Entine can be an exaggerator himself (i don't cite his work as he is basically a pundit, not a reporter, and he is too invested on the pro-GMO side to be credible to people who are neutral or anti-GMO) this has still not risen to level of NY Times or other major media that i have found-- its a classic internet controversy right now. Jytdog (talk) 21:32, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

All for waiting for clear analysis by RS. Just to note Keith Kloor, Jon Entine and Paul Raeburn are noted journalists who have been published in the relevant field (not random internet bloggers, but I'll take your word on Entine). I think the Discover Magazine blogs have editorial oversight also. I haven't read much on The Genetic Literacy Project which is the source for the assertion Adams is behind the website, so caution and patience are in order. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:40, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for the nice discussion on this matter. MrBill3, I've added earlier that GLP claimed to be able to confirm that Adams was behind the website. But Jytdog removed that initially arguing that "we are an encyclopedia not a breathless tabloid." I do see why it is somewhat speculative and not very compelling to have GLP as an authority on these grand claims without further specifications. Although, this part I actually did find relevant for the context. In my opinion GLP is pretty well received by reputable media and I see that Steven Novella is referencing to them. Now I don't see Novella (an expert on neuroscience and skepticism) as an expert on GMO in particular so that may say little. But Novella ain't the person to cite or take word from a low quality source. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 22:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

FYI: I came across articles on The center for consumer freedom, Big Think, Reason.com, Knight Science Journalism at MIT, and Scienceblogs, but none yet on large media outlets. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 22:35, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Mother Jones has published an article on the subject here. Note they carefully avoid stating Adams is behind the "collaborators website" but state it contains, "a list of reporters whom Adams accuses of being in the GMO industry's pocket." The Center for Consumer Freedom is a lobbying front for the fast food industry, not RS. Big Think and Reason.com don't quite make it to RS. The Knight Science Journalism Tracker is RS IMO but don't see that it includes new material, that article was used as the source for the GLP article. ScienceBlogs is RS but this is a very serious allegation (do they state Adams was behind the website?) For such a serious statement in a BLP we would be better off waiting for some very high quality sources. GLP may be well received but I don't know how strong they stand as RS especially for something like this. Always a pleasure to engage thoughtfully and collaboratively. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I work on GMO articles a lot and it is interesting to see all the topsy-turviness around Adams' rant. Just like Jon Entine is predictable (and often exaggeratedly) pro-GMO, Tom Philpott at Mother Jones is predictably (and often exaggeratedly) anti-GMO - indeed in the "related articles" section at the bottom of the Mother Jones article you cite above (not written by Philpott) is an article with a predictably ridiculous headline "Monsanto GM Soy Is Scarier Than You Think" - exactly the same kind of nonsense that NaturalNews usually spouts. I avoid citing all these pundits and the sites that host them - i try to reach for the best sources I can find, that anybody would find acceptable. So yes let's wait to see where this goes and especially if major media picks it up. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

MrBill3, thank you for your thoughtful consideration and analysis of the sources. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

machine article on Twipscience that demonstrates by means of a website analysis why they think the Monsanto Collaborators website is created by Mike Adams himself. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 21:06, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

New section

This case is now described under the section "Founder". I feel we need a seperate section for this, perhaps called "Controversies". Agree? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree 100%, we need a new section since "Reception" doesn't quite cover it. So I think "Controversies" would be a perfectly good title for such a section. I think it should go below the "Reception" section, personally. Jinkinson talk to me 22:42, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of "Controversy", "Criticism" or such sections (and policy leans against them). First of all in this case this was an action attributed to Adams specifically so it is appropriate in the "Founder" section. Second as this is not even a week old perhaps with time it will develop into something worthy of a section on it's own but not at this time. If it does develop into something serious, I don't know quite where it should fall in the article. - - MrBill3 (talk) 22:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There is no doubt that policy is on MrBill3's side here, since WP:CRIT says, "Editors should avoid having a separate section in an article devoted to criticism, controversies, or the like because these sections call undue attention to negative viewpoints." Still, I don't think this latest "Monsanto Collaboration" episode belongs in the section it is currently in, and while the Reception section would make more sense, it still seems weird not to be able to put this into a "controversies" section since this isn't an album, it's a website, so it's not meant to be reviewed by critics. So I still think that, while policy may say otherwise, that a "Controversies" section would be ok to add to this article, since it might even, arguably, be a violation of WP:DUE to present the pro-Natural News viewpoints as equal to the critical ones. I might also note that even Wikipedia's article on itself has a "Criticism" section (and it's a GA, for what that's worth). My views on this are evolving, however. Jinkinson talk to me 23:44, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) concur with MrBill3. As per the WP:STRUCTURE section of the policy, WP:NPOV it is best to fold controversies into the narrative, rather than splitting them off. And again, it is not clear how big of a tempest this will be. There is WP:NODEADLINE. Let's wait and see. Jytdog (talk) 23:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

While we try to shy away from separate criticism or controversy sections, they are not forbidden, and sometimes are the best thing to do. If there are notable controversies or lots of criticism, a separate section is often the best way to deal with it. If it so much that proper coverage would become undue, considering the size of the article, then a section can summarize it and use a main link to a sub article which deals with it in plenty of detail, such as we have done with Chiropractic controversy and criticism. That type of fork article is allowed in order to avoid violating undue in the main article. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

i wouldn't go to the mat fighting having controversy section {although for naturalnews it is hard to see what we would leave out of such a section :) ...}. but let's not make such a section over this incident. not yet anyway. it is too soon to know if we have a tempest in a teapot or something Important. people do this all the time and it kind of drives me crazy. something gets in the news or has a whiff of scandal and people rush to WP to add content - loads and loads of it. We are not a tabloid. We have no deadline. we can wait and see what is important. (this is the stance i take on all things like this. i don't think hyped up news about primary scientific research should be loaded into WP and given lots of weight, be that some pharma company's clinical trial or the latest "shocker" about BPA or coffee; i don't think any company's latest scandal or success should be breathlessly reported, be it NaturalNews or Monsanto. etc etc) Jytdog (talk) 04:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, no problem with following your suggestions. But concerning the 'rule' "it is best to fold controversies into the narrative" I think that anyone has a sense that the narrative is currently in the wrong section. Do you have any suggestions to resolve this? What would be the title of this narrative? Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I am open to suggestions (really I am) but I don't see a better place to put it for now. To say a bit more, we could have a section on "Views" or "Positions" elaborating the views of natualnews on various issues, with a subsection for each (dietary supplements, FDA, pharmaceutical industry, GMOs, etc) but I have little desire to flesh that out and give more weight to these FRINGE ideas. If we did that, this could go into the GMO section I would guess. But right now, this is a stupid thing Adams did. After the story has unfolded more and we see if this has any longer term importance - and if so, what that importance is - a different section might be more apparent.... Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Blogs and non-neutral language

Article needs good, high quality sources. Not blogs. Steve Novella, David Gorski, and Phil Plait are all right about what they say about him, but their blogs do not meet WP:RS, especially for a WP:BLP.

Also removed language that did not seem WP:NPOV.

--Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:35, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This series of edits appeared to be the normal Adams supporter changes/vandalism, so I reverted wholesale. Then I saw this. -Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 05:21, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the deletions were very wrong and reveal a gross misunderstanding of our policies and guidelines, especially when dealing with fringe matters, such as a misleading website like NaturalNews. NPOV requires that the mainstream scientific and skeptical POV is documented. The websites mentioned above are regarded as reliable sources of high profile skeptical opinion, and as such are approved under WP:PARITY and to maintain NPOV. Whitewashing and advocacy are not allowed here. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:55, 31 October 2014 (UTC)

This "article" is not about a website. It is a hatchet job on a living person and violates every Wiki tenet on biographies of living persons.

Having a small group of editors imitating a "consensus" is another violation of Wiki rules and ideals. The agenda is clearly with the creators and maintainers of this horribly biased article. This article should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.199.22 (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

NaturalNews Removing People's Comments

Here is a good story that collaborates TagMan's Post. There may be others, but I need to go to bed. VViking_TalkEdits 01:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

That link is to another blogger. Forbes calls him a "contributor". Why does this "article" rely so heavily on biased bloggers instead of reliable science-based or simply factual praises or criticisms of Mike Adams? In my opinion this is simply a hatchet job.

Novella, Gorski, Plait - all bloggers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.186.199.22 (talk) 16:52, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

Adams is a scientist?

Mike Adams now describes himself as a scientist. This isn't mentioned in the article but surely he's about as far from being a scientist as it's possible to be? 15:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smidoid (talk • contribs)

Depressing isn't it. He's a creation of his own mind. " His work is widely considered to be "beyond doctorate level" in many areas, including computer science and nutrition science." Marcdraco (talk) 12:08, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

References

Substantiate Anti-AIDs/birther/911 truthe Claims?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The following claim on this page is:

"The site's founder, Michael Allen "Mike" Adams is an AIDS denialist, a 9/11 truther, a birther..." And uses the following article as a citation: http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/04/01/natural-news-mike-adams-adds-global-warming-denialism-to-hivaids-denial-anti-vax-altie-med-anti-gmo-birther-crankery/

However, the article does not mention let alone substantiate the claim that Michael Adams denies AIDS. The article doesn't provide any evidence to support he is a '9/11 truther' nor a 'birther' (whatever birther might be I do not know).

I think this sentence needs to be changed or a better citation is required to support these claims.Conzar (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

It's a secondary/tertiary ref on a different topic that includes those aspects in a list of previously covered topics. It has a link to another reference that does support (with multiple cites) the claims. We have a whole article about what a "Birther" is, which is even already linked in the article here. Not that WP actually cares if you personally know what the term means, though it's a problem that you chose not to figure it out before complaining about a cited phrase--though you could propose a different terminology. DMacks (talk) 08:56, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you please link to the primary source for this information as I was unable to find it anywhere on the link in question. Thank youConzar (talk) 00:42, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In general Adams hasn't outright denied that a disease called AIDS exists, but that it's not caused by HIV and that it can be cured by magic beans or whatever. Sort of like "It's AIDS, Jim, but not as we know it." He published www.naturalnews.com/027922_AIDS_David_Icke.html this], though in fairness that was by David Icke rather than Adams himself (birds of a feather). More to the point is www.naturalnews.com/027354_AIDS_HIV_immune_system.html this] stating "There is no such thing as a virus that 'causes' AIDS." Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

"There is no such thing as a virus that 'causes' AIDS." doesn't incicate that he denies that AIDS exists. He is denying the main stream view of the causes of AIDS. It seems the article you reference is providing research into a different analysis of AIDS such as "AIDS is an immune deficiency disorder caused by overuse of recreational drugs and a lifestyle that burns the candle at both ends, including promiscuous sex. Eventually, the immune system collapses." Conzar (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Can you also please provide primary links to the claims of 9/11 truther and a birther please? Thank you. Conzar (talk) 02:25, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Click on the rational wiki link in the linked article, it is packed with references. AIDS denials is a term used for people who deny the HIV AIDS connection. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

In fact our article HIV/AIDS denialism specifies the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS as the very definition of AIDS denialism.

Also thanks for the Rationalwiki pointer. The RationalWiki itself is not a WP:RS but their article is chock full of references that could be used here. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:08, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Slogan is missing from infobox

They have a slogan and it can be included in the infobox. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

• It was there until it was recently removed by JzG, who justified his doing so by saying that including the slogan would be "publicis[ing] the self-serving and disingenuous slogans of nutters." [6] I am pinging him in case he wants to defend his removal of this more. Everymorning (talk) 19:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed. The slogan is mendacious, and it's not our job to help Adams build his brand. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

FBI turns up heat on Mike Adams as ‘Health Ranger’ fiasco widens, plus Adams’ archive

Don't know it this source has been raised before. https://www.geneticliteracyproject.org/2014/07/28/fbi-turns-up-heat-on-mike-adams-as-health-ranger-fiasco-widens-plus-adams-archive/ . Gongwool (talk) 05:12, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

That's a blog source, isn't it? I'd personally think it's of value but suspect it wouldn't pass WP:RS - David Gerard (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Shorty Awards

Bilby (talk · contribs) has twice 1 and 2removed some text summarizing this Phil Plait post. I've asked them to come to talk in my intervening revert - so, Bilby, could you explain why the removed text "goes beyond" what is in the source? It reads like an accurate summary to me. --Krelnik (talk) 20:15, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I did cover this above, but probably should have explained in a separate section. My main concern was that we stated "Phil Plait accused Adams of using sockpuppet accounts to inflate vote counts", when Plait wasn't that strong. What he wrote was "To be fair, I actually don’t think Adams should have been disqualified; we don’t know who set up the fake votes for him". He described the alleged fake votes, and inferred that Adams and/or Mercola might have been behind them, but never directly accused Adams of creating the accounts. Next, we stated this was "specifically in response to a skeptical campaign to upvote Rachael Dunlop", but what Plait wrote was "so Tim tweeted about it, and a bunch of us started to promote our friend Australian Rachael Dunlop" - the push for Rachel Dunlop came as a result of the alleged sock puppets, not the other way round. We also mention that Adams criticised the Shorty Awards, but don't say that Adams denied the allegations, which we should have covered. Finally, we stated "after losing when his fraudulent votes were revoked" - according to Plait and Adams the Health Ranger was removed outright from the competition, rather than losing when individual votes were revoked (which was what Plait wanted to see happen).

Otherwise, given that this is a strong claim and could be explained by actions other than sockpuppet accounts, I'm wary of using Plait as the sole source, especially as it was a blog post (noting that I haven't yet found Discover Magazine's editorial policy on blogs, and they might have editorial control which would make it reliable). I've been looking for a statement from the Shorty Awards about why Adams was removed, but I haven't found an official statement yet.

All up, we could potentially fix it, if we're ok with the source, but it would need to be rewritten. And given the errors I thought it better to remove it until we do a rewrite rather than leave it in place. - Bilby (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm willing to rewrite it and move it to the Criticism section. I also agree we can remove the direct references to Adams and Mercola and just make it about the websites and the votes, thereby removing the BLP issue. Gotta go to work now, but I'll put some proposed text here later. --Krelnik (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Anti-AIDs/birther/911 truthe Claims revisited

I'm aware that this discussion was closed, but as it stands we are making serious allegations about a living person's views that are sourced to a blog. Unfortunately we can't do that. While it is true that the blog is, in turn, sourced to RationalWiki, that in itself doesn't help, as we can't use an open wiki for these sorts if claims either. It might be the case that we can use the sources that RationalWiki employs, although they appear to be relying on interpretation of primary sources. The short version, therefore, is that I've removed the content due to these BLP concerns until we fix the sourcing issue. I have no problem with the clams as such, but we'll need to be more careful with sourcing before we make them.

This also raises two other concerns. The article claimed that Adams endorsed conspiracy theories around the Sandy Hook school shootings, but that was sourced to a blog again, and the blog doesn't claim that his views amount to a conspiracy theory as such. More concerning was the claim that Adams had been conducting sock puppetry to engage in vote stacking. It was sourced to a blog, but possibly one with more editorial control. However, the author was more careful than our wording, not specifically stating that Adams created the accounts. We made a stronger claim than the source and made other errors. If we include this again we should be far more careful in the wording, acknowledge that Adams denied the claim, and preferably look for a better source to use. - Bilby (talk) 15:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

(Just to clarify, Mike Adams just published various comments about WP which I won't link to. Most if not all appear to be entirely wrong, but I was concerned about his claim that this article contained libel. While I can't speak to the truth of the claims, we do need to be very careful about maintaining BLP policy). - Bilby (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with your removal. Your edits appear against NPOV, perhaps because Adams has complained of libel somewhere. Have you seen Natural News? -Roxy the dog™ woof 17:56, 4 May 2016 (UTC)}

Natural News could be the worst publication ever written, and we would still need to follow BLP. Under BLP we can't use self published sources to make claims about living people unless published by the subject. - Bilby (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It appears that two separate topics are in the "Sockpuppet and vote stacking accusations" section: a bunch of things inter-related things on the topic of the Short Awards, and a sentence about alt-med cartoons and mentioning a Dan Berger. That second topic has no cite and sounds unrelated to the first topic. It says the cartoons are "for them" but without even a clear definition of who them is. Unless this is still about the Shorty Awards, it shouldn't be in the same paragraph (or even section), and should be cited and discussed separately. Or else, it needs (with a clearer cite) to explain exactly how it does relate. DMacks (talk) 20:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I figured it was unrelated. Happy to put it back if it has a source, or if it is uncontroversial. I'm leaning towards seeing it as uncontroversial, but I included it due to the lack of a source. - Bilby (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The concerns of Conzar and Bilby have not been factually addressed.

In the original postings by Conzar, some of the respondents defending the Natural News page (as it stands), admit the sources are not reliable or allowed by Wikipedia. Another deception used by the group of editors fighting to keep this terrible page on Wikipedia is to archive the extensive talk page issues, making it seem like there is little controversy about this page.

There is no editor consensus on this page. The editors defending the page are defending using blogs as reliable sources for nearly the entire article, making libelous statements and clearly violating BLP.

In this Bilby-initiated talk-page resurrection of the birther/etc issues, libel is brought up. The entire Natural News article is libelous. Over 90% of the references are blogs! Some of the blogs are mis-quoted or deceptively para-phrased. Most of the blogs' content are simply fabrications. But a group of stubborn/biased (?) editors ignores all criticisms of this article, without any logical, reasoned or factually supported information.

What is an encyclopedia without enforced standards of reason logic and facts? It becomes a blog, in which some of the articles (like Natural News) have been hijacked.

The denialism of the editors defending this page is completely inappropriate for improving this article. Some Wikipedia articles are agenda-driven, and some editors rabidly deny adding truth, or even balance, in the articles. Natural News is one such WP entry.

Bilby refers to a Wikipedian forbidding further discussion in the first version of these birther/etc issues, after not properly addressing Bilby's or Conzar's concerns. This is incredibly arrogant, since the critical respondents to Conzar actually supported some of his concerns.

A small group of WP editors is ignoring/suppressing the truth and violating many WP rules by desperately clinging to this terribly sourced page on Natural News. This group of obviously colluding editors thwart any changes toward a more fair/truthful treatment of Natural News and Mr. Adams. I wonder what inspires this behavior which is CLEARLY in violation of multiple Wikipedia guidelines and rules?

The Natural News article is a really simple fix for someone with editing knowledge/skills, can think and has some integrity.

Where are the reliably sourced and properly quoted references? If reliably sourced refs exist for the plethora of derogatory comments about Mike Adams and his website, list them and quote them. If reliably sourced refs for these derogatory comments don't exist, then REMOVE them. Fix the article to reflect what is reliably known and use properly quoted references, not links to bloggers' opinions. Why aren't the references to blogs removed?

After reading each of the sources for the Natural News entry, this article is exposed as a grotesque aberration of advertised WP goals and one of many examples of a "through the looking glass" moment for Wikipedia. John Altimus (talk) 16:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Yesterdays Natural News Headlines

Mike Adams posted this yesterday: www.naturalnews.com/055729_Hillary_Clinton_election_fraud_White_House.html on the front page of Natural News.

I think it is extreme and should be added or noted somehow on the Wikipedia Natural News page under controversy or notable news.

In yesterday's post, he claims that, "Once the democrats realize they have absolute power with zero accountability, there will be death squads to seek out and murder their political opponents."

Also, "And sometime during all this, the armed American people will realize they have nothing more to lose, and they will almost certainly pick up their rifles, march on Washington and lay it all on the line to either take back their country or die trying. Because in a society where the Second Amendment still lives, it only takes about 1% of the population to take their country back from a corrupt, criminal regime." Explore22 (talk) 17:14, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Does anybody know how Mike is nowadays. Seems to me he is going even further off the rails with this non-notable nonsense. -Roxy the dog™ bark 17:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not "notable" until someone notes it. This doesn't happen much as the mainstream media treats NaturalNews as a source of strangeness and probably wouldn't even find this remarkable - David Gerard (talk) 10:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

BRCA1 gene

THe sentence should read: When Angelina Jolie underwent a double mastectomy in May 2013 because she had a mutation in the BRCA1 gene.

193.222.161.6 (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)Angela193.222.161.6 (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

•  Done Everymorning (talk) 02:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Heavy metal tests Mike Adams has done (or claims he has).

Heavy metal tests are perhaps the only useful information in this website, so maybe that could be mentioned? Unless it has also been proven to be scam?

91.155.24.127 (talk) 01:32, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Can't find any information on it from reliable sources: [7] So I guess we can't mention it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:13, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

trustworthiness

A suggestion to add: In a ranking of over 40 science news outlets, NaturalNews was rated as having one of the worst science reporting. http://acsh.org/news/2017/03/05/infographic-best-and-worst-science-news-sites-10948 http://www.realclearscience.com/blog/2017/03/06/the_best__worse_science_news_sites.html MorlocksAndEloi (talk) 13:34, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

This explains why the graphic is bad. I can generally recommend Melanie Mallon's "Bad Chart Thursday". --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:46, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Mike Adams and 'Falling Sea Levels'

Mike Adams and ‘Falling Sea Levels’

On the general subject of climate-change and sea-level-rise 'hoaxes' Mr. Adams posted the following: ‘NASA confirms: Sea levels have been FALLING across the planet for two years … media SILENT. Wednesday, July 26, 2017 by: Mike Adams Tags: Al Gore, climate change, delusion, global warming, hoax, junk science, NASA, ocean levels, paranoia, satellite data’. 'NASA just confirmed sea levels are actually falling across the planet... see the data. At some point, every intelligent person "wakes up" and realizes the climate change narrative has been a hoax all along. All you have to do is look at the NASA ocean level data, which reveals that ocean levels have been falling worldwide for almost two years. The media, predictably, is totally silent because this science doesn't fit their narrative’. http://www.naturalnews.com/2017-07-26-nasa-confirms-sea-levels-have-been-falling-across-the-planet-for-two-years-media-silent.html However, this misinformation is completely contradicted by 'Scientific American' on July 19th 2017. They affirm sea levels are instead rising. 'The numbers didn’t add up. Even as Earth grew warmer and glaciers and ice sheets thawed, decades of satellite data seemed to show that the rate of sea-level rise was holding steady—or even declining. Now, after puzzling over this discrepancy for years, scientists have identified its source: a problem with the calibration of a sensor on the first of several satellites launched to measure the height of the sea surface using radar. Adjusting the data to remove that error suggests that sea levels are indeed rising at faster rates each year.“The rate of sea-level rise is increasing, and that increase is basically what we expected,” says Steven Nerem, a remote-sensing expert at the University of Colorado Boulder who is leading the reanalysis. He presented the as-yet-unpublished analysis on 13 July in New York City at a conference sponsored by the World Climate Research Programme and the International Oceanographic Commission, among others. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/satellite-snafu-masked-true-sea-level-rise-for-decades . When a subscriber posted this contradictory comment, the censorious Mr Adams chose to remove it. Telogy (talk) 02:23, 27 July 2017 (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. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

On neutrality of tone

I highly question the neutrality of how this page is currently written. As written it sounds like a big hit piece, which honestly only benefits the target of the hit piece, since some of the original website's claims is based on current established science being bought off in order to suppress cures in favor of treating symptoms, and the symptoms created by treating the initial symptoms.

( C.D. Random (talk) 22:41, 19 August 2017 (UTC) )

Videos

Hi everyone - I just migrated a bunch of videos from tthe natural news vimeo page to better illustrate what they promote. I think that in the context of this article, it becomes obvious that they are selling stuff, not reporting news or at best mixing the two. Here are a few videos:

• File:If Donald Trump wins, violent leftists will start bombing government buildings.webm
• File:Remember the children the vaccine industry has left behind.webm

Victor Grigas (talk) 00:33, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 January 2018

A list of sister sites to NaturalNews

The source website also has descriptions of each of the sister websites.

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. -Roxy, Zalophus californianus. barcus 22:01, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In addition, your source is not a reliable source. Although self-published sources are acceptable to support claims organizations make about themselves (like the sites it considers "sister sites"), this does not appear to be published by Natural News. Anon126 (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 22:05, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 February 2018

Radioninja007 (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

this is a highly skewed perspective that does not provide and court documents or scientific cites as a rebuttal to naturalnew.com assertions.

 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. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:05, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Fake news

Sources do describe NN as fake news, it's not really our job to second-guess that. See for example Fake News Empire Exposed, which explicitly identifies NN as fake news, rather than simply containing some fake news. We probably ought to include conspiracy theory and pseudoscience in the infobox too. Guy (Help!) 12:35, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

There's no question that Natural News publishes fake news. But fake news is something you publish, or that a website contains, not something that a website is. Natural news is a blog, not a "fake news". So how about we drop this from the infobox? - Bilby (talk) 12:36, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It is indeed a fake news website. See my comment above. In fact it meets two definitions of fake news: first, most of the news it publishes is fake; second, it presents itself as a news website but is not one. Guy (Help!) 14:06, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

The sources describe it as publishing fake news. I'm ok with that. But how can a website be "fake news"? A website can be a blog, that makes sense. It can be a place that publishes fake news. But how can it actually be fake news? - Bilby (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

It's called "Natural News". He presents it as a fact-based resource reporting news in the world of woo. What it actually does is lie, on an industrial scale. I think that makes it a fake news website, and the sources I have seen agree. Guy (Help!) 18:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

How about saying "Fake news website" rather than "Fake news"? Tornado chaser (talk) 20:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

I changed it to "Fake news blog" to give it a try. Too be honest I think it is better to have "fake news" at the beginning as that is the more important point than just "blog".AlmostFrancis (talk) 04:06, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2020

Natural News (formerly NewsTarget, which is now a separate sister site) is a conspiracy theory and fake news website. Needs to be changed to Natural News (formerly NewsTarget, which is now a separate sister site) is a conspiracy theory and alternative news website. This website is NOT fake news and shame on Wikipedia for pushing a political agenda. 2600:8805:8900:42E:95C6:9F0D:F8D6:A693 (talk) 14:17, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Please read the 3 sources listed right after the text you mentioned backing up the "fake news" statement. --McSly (talk) 14:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)