Talk:National Report

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

about old AFD links above[edit]

The old afd seems to have been for an article about some different entity of the same name. An article about that same entity now appears to reside at National-Report. --TS 04:31, 7 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, one of the old AFDs seemed to be about something different, have edited the box to try to indicate that. Another problem, hope to fix next, is that the two AFDs about the fake news website don't properly link to:
I'll try to fix that. --doncram 21:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks User:C.Fred for fixing it! Done i think. --doncram 21:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose this stub for deletion[edit]

Discussion on deletion proposals belong on their AfD discussions
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Propose this stub for deletion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.114.246 (talk) 05:01, 19 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. A list of posts from a non-notable blog... To call this a stub is to give it too much dignity. 66.27.174.138 (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'd keep it. The main article on satirical news links here, and I seem to be reading more and more cases on Facebook of people commenting on things from fake news sites I think those who want more info on a satirical news site to point out to others what they are citing need examples of what they (the fake news sites) publish Snowinmelbourne (talk) 03:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)snowinmelbourne[reply]

I agree to keep it, and I disagree to define it as a "non-notable blog". It had some influence over italian media where they reported the news as a true event, which I believed it too until I found this wikipedia page proving it was coming from a satirical website, and I guess that's the main reason of wikipedia to exists. I would go for rewriting the page using a proper template rather than keeping it as a stub or deleting it--2.30.121.35 (talk) 10:57, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

31.48.73.38 (talk) 16:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Satire[edit]

National Report does not fall within any accepted definition of "satire." It is a hoax site. If someone builds a fake UFO and floats it up with the expectation that people will believe it's an alien ship, that is NOT "satire." It's a hoax. It's no different than what National Report does. Anyone who insists on using the term "satire" over "hoax" with respect to National Report understands the definition of neither. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • contribs) 06:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have reliable sources that call it satire. We must go by them, not your personal definition. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As the article says (does the 'however' imply criticism here?): "The disclaimer, however, is not printed on the main page, which instead claims that the website is "America's #1 Independent News Source."" Indeed, but this is accompanied by a Picture of Ted Cruz on the left + the name written out, same with Sarah Palin on the right, in the middle the claim of independence --> this should be obvious enough. Have you ever seen a hoax giving that many hints about it's true nature? Heraklit~dewiki (talk) 10:24, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my opinion -- it's a dictionary. It cracks me up that you would insist Facebook's labeling and a couple of op-ed columns that are nothing more than personal opinion are more reliable sources than a dictionary. You are insisting it is satire because an opinion you read insists it is. But none of the footnotes prove that it is. In fact, the first reference is an opinion column that uses the term "satire" ironically -- in quotes throughout -- essentially underscoring the implication in the citation's very title: that it is NOT satire. READ THE TITLE. The second citation is a Snopes article that simply copies National Report's own disclaimer wherein they say they're satire. Accepting that as a "reliable source" is like accepting Charles Manson as a reliable source for the claim that Charlie is a nice normal guy. The third "reliable source" is a report on Facebook's operational tactic of using a "satire" tag. It's a TAG, not a factual determination on every site that gets the tag. Satire sites get the tag, hoax sites get the tag, parody sites get the tag. It's meaningless -- and again, READ THE TITLE. It's about how the "satire" tag could kill the HOAX industry. The Onion and National Report are not the same. Do you freaking work for national report or something? Because your approach is definitely not NPOV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarahseehoward (talk • contribs) 01:38, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be very clear: None of those "reliable sources" call it satire. Read the sources using ALL of your brain.Sarahseehoward (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The National Report is a satirical publication that began publishing fake news stories in our second year. I do want to directly address this issue in the future but at the moment as my time is best spent working to correct the NR page and after that I will post here on the satire/fake news issue.NigelCovington85 (talk) 20:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Verge article from yesterday uses the term "satire", but also "fake news", and mentions how the National Report website itself now deliberately avoids using the term "satire". From the site's current output and its profile in the Verge, it doesn't seem as if they're either attempting or achieving satire any more. Is "fake news" maybe a more accurate phrase for the opening sentence? --McGeddon (talk) 10:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reuters is now describing it as "fake news" and saying "It would be generous to describe the National Report’s treatment of current events as “satirical.”", so I think "fake" is a more accurate description at this point. --McGeddon (talk) 11:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters uses the term "hoax" more often than any other description. But the latest revisions to this article are a spectacular step toward greater accuracy. Thank you, McGeddon, for your involvement. Sarahseehoward (talk) 23:38, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Fails to Verify Data[edit]

[section title revised, and some passages removed, per discussion further below--doncram 02:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)][reply]

Greetings,

Yesterday I was given the task to clean up several erroneous and inaccurate entries on the National Report's Wikipedia page. I am part owner and the editor-in-chief for the company. And I have read the conflict of interest page that I linked to this afternoon. I personally don't know who created the current page that has been put up and published. I established a user account recently and have no experience using Wikipedia. Today was my first attempt to remove the inaccurate content and replace it with correct content. Also the company wants to provide a history of the company to our page and to recognize all of our writers and their work. My corrections were reverted however so I contacted Wikipedia's volunteer staff at your HELP desk to discuss these changes. The following is a list of invalid information. Line one states "The website was founded by Allen Montgomery in 2013.[5]" Reference 5 reads as follows, 5 "Sorry, 'Breaking Bad' Season 6 Is Definitely Not Happening". Mashable. 26 August 2014. Retrieved 20 October 2014." This information is wrong. Next the data box on the far right under the words "National Report" states, "Founder(s) Allen Montgomery. This data is inaccurate. The content under "List of serious interpretations" is not disputed. Next is a section titled, "Paul Horner" In line one it states, "Paul Horner is the lead writer for the website,[31]". Wrong information which is inaccurate since the National Report does not now and has never had a position called "lead writer." This title or position does not exist in company records. Reference 31 reads, "This is not an interview with Banksy". Washington Post. Retrieved 23 October 2014. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/10/22/this-is-not-an-interview-with-banksy/)

This reference refers to the Washington Post article which interviewed Mr. Horner. [some discussion removed--doncram] I could go on and on but I think my argument is sound. [some discussion removed--doncram]

But most disturbing is that I came to Wikipedia as a new user for your help, and Wikipedia volunteers Huon and Dragonfly6-7 responded to me in chat. Then both of them spent well over an hour lambasting me, calling me a liar and using vulgar and offensive language. Why I was treated like filth by Wikipedia is beyond me, but you've got filth for volunteers and I'm have stunned by Wikipedia's shameless remarks towards me today. I tried to post a jpeg image of a screenshot of that conversation but find I cannot. If you won't help me correct the false information posted and offer the public degenerates for your help page staff then keep the page of horseshit posted. I'll love referring to its many unfounded claims and incorrect citations as an example of the fine work you people do and the wonderful help desk staff you provide to the public where we can all be called obscenities. You have no credibility after that offensive chat and I will publish that chat conversation where the public can see your "encyclopedia" as the piece of shit it is. You can thank your nice volunteers for that.NigelCovington85 (talk) 09:41, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If I could figure out what you wanted, perhaps I could help. Roxy the dog™ (resonate) 09:53, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the given source doesn't identify Montgomery as the founder, just the "publisher", and gives no date for the site's founding, so I'll correct that. If a secondary source felt that "lead writer" was a fair summary of an individual's work, and we have no sources saying anything to the contrary, it could perhaps be bumped down to "described by the Washington Post as the site's lead writer" but I see no reason to remove it. --McGeddon (talk) 10:25, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nigel thanks for being straightforward about your COI. I am sorry for how you were treated earlier - this is a very decentralized place "staffed" by volunteers; there is no way for Wikipedia to control or optimize any user's experience. Moving on... the first point here is, that you should not directly edit the article. At this point you don't know how to use Wikipedia and you are likely to do things unintentionally that will end up making National Report look bad. (Please consider learning how to actually edit on other articles, where you don't have a COI.) When you get more confident (and even now if you want to risk it) you can make simple, noncontroversial, fact-correcting/updating edits directly to the article. Things like number of employees, address of office. Facts. For anything beyond that, please use the "edit request" feature described in WP:COI to make requests for changes here on this Talk page. Please make one edit request per change, to keep things simple - we are all volunteers here and so you want to make it easy - don't post a wall of text. Ideally you would copy the sentence(s) you want changed, and offer alternative wording, with sources that support the new wording. It's useful to provide a few words about why you want to make the change. Somebody will reply and implement the request in whole or in part, or will decline, and will give their reasons. That is the best way for you to proceed. I'm watching this page and I will be looking out for your edit requests. Good luck! Jytdog (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I was just reading the notations posted here. I am the paid editor-in-chief at the National Report so I do understand the COI tag. I'm new to Wikipedia so please excuse me for posting a number of questions. [some discussion removed--doncram] Since we first became aware of the Wiki page last month I have worked to have removed much of that content and today the company is satisfied with the page as it is now.

We would like to provide a short company history and create a section that provides some basic information about each writer including Mr. Horner. I don't know if this is possible or how I would submit such data but we can provide verification so that Wikipedia can check it out first. Can someone refer me to some instructions about how that information can be submitted? Thank you. Nigel CovingtonNigelCovington85 (talk) 22:29, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Post you proposed content (with sources) in a new selection below, and use the {{request edit}} template to mark it. One of us will review it and work with you to get it into proper form for WP -- when it is ready, one of us will update the article with it. Jytdog (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo and Vice both say Horner works for National Report, the latter says he's "publisher and prankster in chief". We report what reliable sources say (and WaPo and Vie are certainly reliable secondary sources), not people with COIs. See WP:TRUTH. Get the sources to issue corrections. Otherwise it stays here. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:01, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised the coverage of Paul Horner a bit, to correct mis-reporting from two sources given (#29 and #30 in the current numbering of footnotes), and to avoid possibly erroneous implications.
  • About Paul Horner currently working for the site, that was implied by present tense in article. However NigelCovington85 here asserts that Horner does not work for the site, and we do not have evidence Horner does currently work for the site, so avoid saying/implying he does. It is a fact that he was a writer for the site, so say that.
  • Also from the interview with Horner it appears that the source did not specifically evaluate him as some formal "Lead Writer", and there is not evidence that Horner made any false assertion that there was such a position; he was simply summarized as being "a [something] and lead writer" which to me sounds like it is an accurate, true description. But don't elevate that to becoming a false claim. Hopefully my revision fixes that.
  • Also there was incorrect assertion (by my reading of the source) that Horner used his name as the actor behind a mascot dolphin and that the dolphin toured the country; it seems that was partly a conflation of Horner having sometimes used his own name for recurring characters, plus Horner having created the dolphin as a recurring character. I don't see Horner saying he reported that he was ever in a dolphin suit; I don't believe the dolphin did tour the country; I think the gag was the assertion that there was such a mascot character touring the country. I think the Wikipedia editor must have believed that Paul Horner actually went around in a dolphin suit, while I think he did not (or at least that is not yet supported). Perhaps/probably that could have been funny, but from the source I think the Wikipedia editor misunderstood the gag. (Correct my revision if I am in fact wrong, with additional sourcing, please.)
  • And I made some other revisions. Hopefully this helps. --doncram 20:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks those were helpful edits. Jytdog (talk) 20:36, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

NigelCovington85 declared here and above that he is editing this article on behalf of the company that is the subject of the article. I have tagged the article for COI and have added the connected contributor tag above. Jytdog (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NigelCovington85's three edits to the article have long since been reverted, so I don't think it needs a COI tag on that basis. --McGeddon (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Was just reviewing everything, and am OK with taking the COI tag off the article. Will do that now. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it may still be appropriate: Covington seems to be vaguely accusing another editor of [some discussion removed--doncram] --McGeddon (talk) 18:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just took out the Horner section. I don't see any reliable source linking him to National Report other than the WaPo article, which appears to contain hoaxed information. Jytdog (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Jytdog: then you missed the Vice article. The info passes WP:RS and WP:V. Absolutely no reason to remove it. Further, it was silly to remove it based on the unverified and unsupported statement that WaPo appears to contain hoaxed information. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 05:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you are correct that i was wrong to act on Nigel's assertions above. sorry about that.Jytdog (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Regarding the Vice story concerning the National Report. Vice never contacted the National Report for an interview. The NR has never released any information to Vice. [some discussion removed--doncram] Thank you for your consideration.NigelCovington85 (talk) 17:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We can't take your word for it. Vice is a reliable source with a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
that is maybe too tersely said, EvergreenFir, but true. Nigel, one of WP's founding principles is WP:VERIFY - anything that drives content needs to based on what we call "reliable sources" (see WP:RS). So we cannot act on your assertion here, that the author of the Vice article didn't talk with NR. (by the way, we have no way of knowing if you actually are Nigel Covington - heck we don't even know that a real human named Nigel Covington who writes for NR actually exists - the persona could just be another level of hoax/bullshit published by NR). Jytdog (talk) 18:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we can and should act on some of these Talk page assertions, and I just edited the article to do so. Namely we don't want the Wikipedia article to state something we know to be false, or that we believe to be false (e.g. based on Talk page assertions), even if we have a source seeming to say it is true. We can often just copyedit to avoid any possibly false implications. Hopefully editing done both addresses some of NigelCovington85's issues and is also fully accurate. --doncram 21:27, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

in general[edit]

hey folks, There is so much rank bullshit associated with NR, and so many errant sources... let's be really careful to attribute, and be really careful about what we say in WP's voice. we don't want to fall for any bullshit. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in general. I made some fixes to remove some ways that Wikipedia was falling for some in mis-reporting from sources, in my opinion, mentioned in a section above. Given the National Report is a fake news site, and sources' interviews with them and reporting about them is conducted in a jovial way probably without too much concern for fully vetting every assertion in an amusing article, it does seem hard for us now to distinguish between what's true vs. fake. The person asserting to speak for the National Report in sections above is probably legit, I would guess for now, but it is possible that he is hoaxing too. There is some process within Wikipedia (which I am not familiar with) to establish/verify account linkages to real people. Perhaps by consultation with wp:OTRS confidential volunteers email service? Because that service addresses copyright issues, where writers/photographers/owners of copyright must establish they are who they say they are, for them to give over copyright rights. Could someone advise this editor, perhaps, at their Talk page. Don't be punitive, he has done nothing wrong by any reasonable standard.
One concern not yet raised here is BLP issues on this Talk page itself. There are a couple negative claims on this Talk page, which seemed in context as reasonable to express, but which are negative claims nonetheless about a living person. [I think all such claims have now been removed by me.--doncram] See wp:BLP? about Biography of a Living Person issues. Specifically it's stated (understandably as a matter of emphasis given seeming obtuseness on part of Wikipedia editors) that [some discussion removed--doncram] These are claims that the subject person might view as negative (or maybe he would laugh, i dunno), but by Wikipedia standards for BLP they are pretty clearly violations. I do not believe the poster of those statements is aware of our obligations this way (he cannot yet be aware of all our policies), and given the apparent obtuseness of wikipedia responsen (unfortunately too typical in Wikipedia treatment of new editors), I think it was highly reasonable for the person to express out more along those lines than he would probably have done otherwise. So, don't punish the poster, but maybe that person should be advised at his Talk page, and maybe this article Talk page should be reviewed and the BLP violations should be redacted (including redeacting my restatement of two of them within this passage). [Done doing that, I think--doncram] --doncram 20:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings all, I have emailed the wp:OTRS confidential volunteers email service concerning my use of a VPN service and pen name in hopes of removing the block and confirming my actual identity. Also I thought when posting here this was an inside WP communication not for public view. I learned yesterday that I was incorrect. Any information regarding [some discussion removed -- doncram] [Regarding that,] I would have no objection with its removal. I will no longer make further comments that can be regarded as negative.

Strictly to support Jytdog's above mention of "bullshit" produced by the NR that is absolutely correct, though not for publication. The NR does publish satirical and fake news content. Misdirection is our forte. The website is a fan based driven site for the most part, though many who are not fans pick up on a headline go to the site where one of two things happen. They hate us and do not return, or they enjoy satire and "get it" and have the option to bookmark us or sign up for email service to follow the site and its writers. Bullshit is our business and I thank Jytdog for pointing this out. I also understand the necessity for WP to verify sources, confirm my identity and so forth. Do understand we are part of a corporation of record that owns a number of other websites. Though we produce horseshit we do take our business relations very seriously.

After becoming aware of the WP page for the NR last month the publisher and I strongly felt compelled to remove inaccurate information and we desire to provide a short history about the company for the page sometime soon. I hope this post acts to clarify my intent here. Once the IP block has been resolved I look forward to working more with you guys, I feel like much good has been accomplished already on my bumpy path to WP, though I don't expect anyone to believe me. (smile). We do not want to work on the WP page after these questions are resolved, though we may have future additions to submit for consideration. I'll be glad to get back to my usual work once this is completed. Thanks everyone. Nigel --NigelCovington85 (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, good. In this edit I removed some passages in this section and sections above that are no longer needed here, I think, with your agreement, thanks, leaving indications like "[some discussion removed--doncram]". I think this helps, and that's all I'm going to do for now; if an admin thinks more or less changes are needed, by all means go ahead and change further. --doncram 02:09, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

request edit for National Report[edit]

Greetings,

I have prepared additional content intended to be included on the National Report page on Wikipedia. The information I'm submitting includes source data for much of this content. However text referring to the company's history, and philosophy leading up to the creation of the website would seem impossible to cite sources since most of the site's purpose, intent and design were developed in conversations between myself and partner Allen Montgomery before the site ever went online. I feel such content is important to help define the who, what and why behind the creation of the site and have included it believing it significant to anyone who might want more information on the site.

This will be my first attempt to submit content so please let me know if I'm not doing this correctly.

Thank you, Nigel Covington

The content is as follows...

National Report, Type: Satire & Parody of American Mainstream News Media Format: Website Publisher: Allen Montgomery Editor-in-Chief: Nigel Covington Launched: February 23, 2013[1] Website: nationalreport.net (http://www.nationalreport.net/)

National Report is an American digital media company that predominately publishes as a daily. Using components of satire including irony, sarcasm, derision, tragedy, ridicule and invective language the publication lampoons the American mainstream news media. The National Report often reports on current events, both real and fictional and is an entertainment website intended for those 18 years of age and older.

National Report creators Allen Montgomery, publisher and Nigel Covington, editor-in-chief adopted a common newspaper format to give the publication an air of the bygone print media era and to add the appearance of legitimacy.

Parodies run by National Report generally follow an archetype composition developed by its creators. With the look and feel of a genuine news site stories start out plausible and become less so with each paragraph. The publication's intent is to let the reader discover the satirical content of any piece on their own if they take the time to read through the story.

This is accomplished through the use of surreal, outrageous and implausible proclamations made by its writers along with the use of hyperbole, juxtaposition, literary misdirection, irony, double entendre, metaphor, metonymy, and oxymoron's.

The website runs feature stories, editorials, interviews and opinion pieces lampooning local, national and international news, sports, music, science, religion, contemporary politics, the American mainstream media, the entertainment industry and more.

Articles found on the National Report are not solicited. The company does not place limits on what writers choose to write about. Therefore articles often reflect extreme views from a religious perspective, a political perspective and from both the conservative and liberal camps.

History National Report was developed during January and February of 2013 as a satirical publication that mimics the American mainstream media today. The site covers a wide spectrum of topics much like any news outlet would. The website went online on February 23, 2013,[1] and has ever since been controversial. Numerous articles published about the National Report have credited the publication for its cutting satire,[2] or have denounced the publication for its inability to write satire[3] and for its lack of humor in reporting.

Philosophy & Confirmation Bias Many Americans under 30 who grew up largely exposed to satire by reading The Onion today expect satire to be funny believing satire is a genre of comedy. Comments frequently left by readers of the National Report clearly reflect the commenter's belief that if an article isn't funny it can't be satire. "Only since the age of The Onion has satire required some sort of a humor aspect to it," said Allen Montgomery, founder and publisher of the National Report.[6]

Satire is rightfully a genre of literary art and expression therefore a work of satire may or may not be humorous though humor is one component commonly found in satirical works. "Laughter is not an essential component of satire; in fact there are types of satire that are not meant to be funny at all."[7]

In addition to the publication being a form of entertainment for its fan base the goal of National Report is to promote or provoke its readers into a discourse by exposing people's faults, vices, ineptness, follies especially in the context of religious issues, contemporary politics, and topical issues found in the news. According to the Oxford dictionary, the definition of "satire" well defines the preponderance of work found on National Report.[4]

According to Montgomery, the National Report's success is largely due to confirmation bias.[5] Montgomery explains how confirmation bias works during his interview on The Rundown Live podcast # 191.[6]

Understanding readers will click on a story that validates their own personal views, the National Report gives readers exactly what they expect to find. A legitimate looking news website.

But one look at the headlines found on National Report such as, Obese Teen Gamers Too Lazy To Masturbate Study Says, Parents Put 16 Year Old Daughter Up For Adoption After Learning She is Gay, Satan Worshiping Child Beheads Cat for Show-and-Tell, MO Woman Possessed by Demon after Signing Up for Obamacare, Super Bowl XLIX Odds: Patriots Now Heavy Favorite to Cheat and Facebook Slaps “Satire” Tags On NBC Links As Result Of Brian Williams’ Scandal, should be a dead giveaway of the site's content.[8]

Fake News / Hoaxes From November 2013 through December 2014, the National Report explored adding Fake News / Hoaxes to its publication. A number of these stories did well. In January 2015, the company refocused its efforts more on satire and less on the Fake News / Hoax genre.

Sources: Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

[1] Website launched first story, Marijuana Kills! Fatal Strain of Cannabis Claims First Victim in California Town, published on February 23, 2013

[2] SplitSider http://splitsider.com/2013/11/satire-is-hard-why-most-onion-ripoffs-dont-work/ "For others, the fact that National Report owns this deception may put them in the clear, and indeed make theirs some of the most cutting satire of all."

[3] Tucson Weekly, 

http://www.tucsonweekly.com/TheRange/archives/2013/08/26/national-report-proves-that-not-everyone-on-internet-can-write-satire

"National Report Proves That Not Everyone On Internet Can Write Satire"

[4] Oxford Dictionary, American English/satire, http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/satire?searchDictCode=all

[5] Science Daily (confirmation bias) http://www.sciencedaily.com/articles/c/confirmation_bias.htm

[6] The Rundown Live podcast # 191- (Interview with Allen Montgomery) http://therundownlive.com/rundown-live-191-allen-montgomery-nationalreport-net-satire-comedy/ Aired on January 28, 2014.

[7] Wikipedia, Satire http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire#Satire_and_humor

[8] National Report, http://nationalreport.net/

Nigel CovingtonNigelCovington85 (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigel. Can you move the draft to user:NigelCovington85/sandbox? Then use two equals signs on either side of section titles and use <ref> and </ref> at the beginning and end of citations. At the end of the article use <nowiki>{{reflist}} to produce the references list. Unfortunately, it does require a bit of wiki-code to put together a readable draft, but if you take a look at a couple of other articles it's pretty easy to figure out and I can help you a bit. CorporateM (Talk) 04:07, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, CorporateM On Feb. 17, 2015, I followed the directions above and moved this submission to Nigel Covington's Talk Page. I took last week off and today see there have been no comments / editing done. I opened the "Edit" section for both content and sources this morning and clicked on "Save Page" again hoping that did so properly in order to resubmit my request again. I suspect I didn't do it correctly from the lack of a reply. Thank you all for your patience. Nigel CovingtonNigelCovington85 (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, NigelCovington85 I can step in and made some edits and provide some pointers about getting the draft ready for prime-time. I'll post comments on User talk:NigelCovington85/sandbox.--CaroleHenson (talk) 09:11, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a summary of the conversation about edits on User talk:NigelCovington85/sandbox. I am closing this out as a "partial" implementation.--CaroleHenson (talk) 00:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some concern that this article is now using the site owner's preferred description of the site as "satire" or "parody", when - per Talk:National_Report#Satire - secondary sources are describing its content more as "fake news" or "hoaxes", and part of a wider 2014 trend for deliberate viral hoax sites that aren't even trying to be funny. --McGeddon (talk) 12:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
McGeddon I had actually recommended the change to parody, equating it to The Onion. The more I am learning, though, the more I see your point. Looking at the search results for National Report on satire / parody, it does appear that some new sources say that it's a parody or satire site... but many say that while National Report says it's a satire or parody site, it results in hoaxes or is fake news. This biggest problem being that the site and the stories can seem to be real news. What do you think about a combined "satire / fake news" label?--CaroleHenson (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do we have any sources that specifically discuss its satirical nature? If the surface mentions call it a "satire website" in passing but every source that writes about the site in detail says "cynical viral hoax stories, barely even satire", we should use the more considered analysis. There's room to cover both aspects in the article (and it'd be good to quote anything the publishers have said on record about what how they consider their work), but the lede section and infobox should accurately reflect the sources by making clear that the NR isn't a funny Onion-style site, it's a source of deliberately straight-faced hoaxes. --McGeddon (talk) 10:03, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'll pull some info together and post it here and ping you then.--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
McGeddon, I started pulling together information by running down the most well-known / estblished news sources:
It seems to be a trend to be considered a satire site that produces fake news. What do you think?--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:53, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"first"[edit]

It is WP:OR to make a statement that X is the first of something, and then use X as the source for that. For example, I could write. "The Declaration of Independence was the first time the letter 's' was written to look like an 'f'.<ref>Declaration of Independence</ref>" but this would be OR (and wrong). You need some other source - a secondary source - to make that claim. That is what you did, saying that National Report went online on X date, and citing an article from National Report from that date, as your source. Does that make sense? We have to be super-careful making any factual statements about National Report since it itself throws so much misinformation out there. Jytdog (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks OK now thanks. Without sourcing for the history, it will have to go. but we can see if anybody provides some. Jytdog (talk) 01:02, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog,

Thank you I do understand and I have withdrawn (I hope) the previous attempt to alter the page. I will address this tomorrow and trust me I'll be very happy to be focusing my time on site business and leaving this to you Wikipedians. However if Wikipedia publishes the NR page with something we strongly object to on grounds that it is biased and not objective we will challenge that which is what I believe this has come down to. The company was fine with the original page before it was changed to being designated "fake news." And before someone added a Paul Horner box to the page. Beyond those two items we believe to be grossly inaccurate we are fine with the page as is.

Should health issues prevent me from doing so Monday I will do so this week.NigelCovington85 (talk) 03:40, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi NigelCovington85,
I can totally understand that you would like to have National Report described as you see it and want it to be seen. Since it's an encyclopedia article, based upon secondary sources, the content should represent a balanced view from those secondary sources. See McGeddon's comments in the previous secction. I'm going to work on gathering some data, but the ultimate resolution will be based on what's in the secondary sources and consensus. I was ahead of myself to have opened up the issue of the "fake news" vs. parody description without having done more research first. I apologize for that! I hope you feel better soon!--CaroleHenson (talk) 21:14, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Horner[edit]

@CaroleHenson: asked me to look into the Paul Horner section. I see that a prior discussion showed consensus to either delete the Paul Horner article or merge it here, and the closing editor went with Merge. This has created an awkward off-topic section about one of the publication's writers.

In my opinion, a single sentence that says "Paul Horner has been the publication's lead writer since October 2014" would suffice on this page. However, I also think the prior AfD discussion was incorrect and not very robust. The main premise of the deletion rationale was that the only sources available were interviews, however this Washington Post story has a robust amount of biographical information on Horner that is written in the journalist's voice.

For example, it discusses his work as a writer starting in 1999, that he ran a successful mortgage company, then went back to school in Hawaii for web design and SEO. He started a website called IYWIB.com and another called Super Official News, which set the stage for his current work. His father was an activist and artist. Also, the sources seem to have plenty of claims to notability, regarding large-scale hoaxes he facilitated and is known for.

In summary, my suggestion would be to restore the Horner page and trim the content here down to a single sentence. CorporateM (Talk) 21:47, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at this, CorporateM. Your comment about trimming the information down in this article makes sense. I did a little poking around, and I wonder if the subject would meet general notability guidelines or WP:Biographies of living persons for his own article, perhaps to your point about the conversation not being very robust.--CaroleHenson (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, The comment made by CorporateM... "In my opinion, a single sentence that says "Paul Horner has been the publication's lead writer since October 2014" would suffice on this page," is bad data. The WaPo article was an interview done with Mr. Horner. He has never been a "lead writer" for the NR, nor has he been a spokesperson for the company. He was one of a dozen freelance writers the NR accepted submissions from for a little over a year. Meaning he started with us late 2013. Termination occurred in December 2014. Further, the NR does not have, nor have we ever had a position or title for a lead writer. This is a self-imposed title Horner used in that interview that doesn't exist within the company structure. As far as Paul Horner falling into your accepted guidelines for general notability guidelines or WP:Biographies of living persons and creating a page for him we have no right to object to such a page unless it is published on the NR page. We do not understand how or why Mr. Horner received special recognition by having his own PH box on the NR page. We opine if you do so for him you must likewise do so for all of our dozen or so writers. Its not fair to recognize one and ignore the other contributors. Nigel CovingtonNigelCovington85 (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nigel. you have said that before, and as we told you before, we cannot use any of that unless it is published in a reliable source somewhere. you didn't have a source then - perhaps you have one now? thx Jytdog (talk) 23:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jytdog <---- I hope I'm doing this right in order to reply. No new sources. My question to you than is how does any company confirm such details about someone's status or employment with said company? There are privacy issues that we do respect. I don't want to publish information that would appear derogatory to Mr. Horner, but as one of the two partners who created the NR, Allen Montgomery and I are the only two spokespersons for the company. I'm not posting something inaccurate or with intent to harm Mr. Horner in anyway. But the information is incorrect. This continues to be a hard wall I keep running into again and again. I have no intent to fling garbage your way for some hidden purpose I only wish to present the fact that the company has not and does not have any lead writers, all writers with me being the exception are freelancers. And we are not responsible for interviews done by any freelancers who claim to be a spokesperson for the company when in fact they are not. If Wikipedia wants to call Mr. Horner a "lead writer" then do so, but you rightfully than must note that the company has no lead writers or spokespersons other than Mr. Montgomery and I to be fair. The fact is Wikipedia wants to be accurate as a legitimate online encyclopedia, and to that ends I only wish to help. But the moment Wikipedia opts to exclude the company owners as a genuine source just to make a simple point you defeat that purpose. Horner claimed to be many things and provided sham titles, once claiming to be publisher of the NR. Just because someone states they are the head cook and bottle washer for the NR doesn't make it so. So I feel as if I'm being excluded by Wikipedia as a legitimate source for my own company, which leads me to assume my partner in this endeavor Allen Montgomery, as publisher would likewise face exclusion as well. So exactly how does a company properly object to bogus information that gets thrown up on their companies Wiki page haphazardly? Are we expected to provide company documents to Wikipedia regarding our writers tenure with the NR which Wikipedia claims may be published on Internet, thereby breaking the man's right to privacy protected him under the law? I'm sorry that a former freelancer arraigned his own interview with WaPo and made whatever claims he wanted during that interview that wound up in print. But if Wikipedia wants to treat the WaPo article as the word of God so be it. That does not magically make it so. What I'm I to do? NigelNigelCovington85 (talk) 00:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually Nigel without a reliable source for your claim that National Reporter has no "lead writers" and that this is incorrect, there is not much we can do. There are some famous cases of this kind of thing happening. But I don't know, maybe if nobody objects we can just ignore the WaPo article in which Horner said that. CaroleHenson and CorporateM, thoughts on that, as a way out of the problem? As far as I can see WaPo is the only source for the claim (other sites cite WaPo). Jytdog (talk) 00:40, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to get a better feel of the situation. I would encourage the National Report to seek a correction with the Washington Post. If the Washington Post issues a correction (or if they have already and you can provide a link), we would then be able to correct it here. In the meanwhile, I'll trim it down to the one sentence and may look into starting a proper separate article on him. CorporateM (Talk) 01:52, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CM asked me to comment. giving my personal opinion only: I'm not aware the term "lead reported" is ever a formal a title; it seems rather a description. I can see no basis for not using the WP story as a source, both for the present article and the proposed article on Horner, and no basis for rejecting the descriptive term they used. . We probably would do well to word it as according to an article in the WPost by .. , .... (assuming we can at least verify the name of the writer of that article) . I think the WPost is fully accepted here as a reliable source, even for controversial biographies of living people. We have ourselves no possible way of knowing what proportion of the content in the NR is Horner's work, and we need to follow our source, especially with BLP related material. If there's a reasonable claim otherwise, we'd need a published source for it outside the publication itself to even include it, though we could also report on what the NR's own website claims about it.
Disputes about the ownership or authorship of material arise frequently, and I'm sure Mr. Covington will understand that there's no reason we can or should accept as definitive any unsourced statement especially from an interested party. There can be any number of reasons one person might claim to be a key author, and for another person to deny it--even if one of those people is the publisher.
whether there is enough information on Horner for a separate article, would be up to another AfD. No one person can make that decision. If the material was different, I don't think it would need deletion review to write it, but what the decision would be would depend on the sourcing. (My personal comment about the merge is thatI would have merged a good deal more of the material--the place to discuss that is here, or at AfD2 if an article is written. DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DGG thanks for weighing in. The current state of the article is a bit... off ... and I had meant to comment on a recent edit. Caitlin Dewey of WaPo interviewed Horner in Oct 2014 and [ in the article reporting that], described him as the "lead writer" with a now-dead link to National Report's website. (here is the Internet Arhive link to that page from Sept 2014, the closest in date... and here is the "staff page" from that date, where Horner is described as "Staff Writer".). Dewey referred to Horner again as "lead writer" in her piece on National Report in January 2015 that is now cited in our article. I have not found another source that calls him that, that doesn't cite WaPo. So... we have one reporter's word for it. And it is causing angst here. I don't see why we need to insist on "lead"... lots of sources say he was a "writer" for them. That is my take. Jytdog (talk) 05:27, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure we need to either. But we also have no real need to eliminate it. it's a balance between making a change at the unsourced request of an interested party, dmd using somewhat less definite language. DGG ( talk ) 07:35, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misinterpretations[edit]

KalHolmann, I certainly understand your rationale for changing the heading from "List of serious interpretations" to "Misinterpretations," but the current heading is confusing because it seems to imply that these are misinterpretations by National Report, when in fact they're misinterpretations by other media. However a better heading isn't immediately coming to mind. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:31, 12 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Jimmy Rustling" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information icon A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Jimmy Rustling. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 18#Jimmy Rustling until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:National_Report&oldid=1198709275"