Talk:National Enquirer/Archive 1

Archive 1

xmas tree info

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

• • I reverted back to your prior edition. That was vandalism.--Hokeman 21:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually I believe that the editor made some substantial contributions to the text regarding current changes at the Enquirer, in addition to useful minor edits. The Christmas tree paragraph does interfere with the flow of the text, in that it is "off topic" from the preceding and subsequent paragraphs. While I wouldn't insist on leaving it out, I think it is incorrect to refer to those edits as vandalism. -Jmh123 23:32, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

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

Header

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

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

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

Oh, wow, yes. I wasn't trying to sound critical of the article. I'm in favor of leaving it the way it is, which is fair without being iconoclastic (i.e. by sounding as if the NE were so reliable as to be the NYTimes). I've noticed that certain people here editing at wikipedia, though, don't seem to want to give the NE any kind of credit, and there's never any good reason other than "The NE isn't a reputable source because I know it isn't". I think this article is correct, and that people would do well to read it (and the article at Slate) to take a fresh look at the facts. Turly-burly 23:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This page does have potential, but it needs more citations. There are numerous statements to the fact that the NE has become an established, responsible paper, etc., but there is no appropiate citations for them. I think a way to not only strengthen this article but make more people actually believe that the NE can be a valid news source is if these claims are properly cited. -Kraw Night 19:54, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

reference

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

Yellow Journalism

Why is this classified as a supermarket tabloid? It should be officially called yellow journalism. I can think of no better example... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.222.253 (talk) 02:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Sadly, they release a thruthful story occasionally, so some stupid people will take them seriously. The fact that they present their news as real tells me that production of The National Enquirer should be shut down. The fact that they present misleading stories that people believe and insist that they told the truth makes them a danger to society. 72.95.139.248 (talk) 20:46, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Catchphrase / motto / slogan

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

Yes, this article is ludicrously incomplete without a reference to their slogan! I can't tell if it's "Inquiring" (correct spelling) or "Enquiring" and I didn't know "Because" was on the front. I'll try to add it but I'm sure it'll be taken out because I can't find citations. -- Skierpage (talk) 05:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I thought the slogan was spelled "Enquiring minds..." (matching the name of the newspaper) but I see that the article currently uses "Inquiring minds." Can someone find a definitive answer? The National Enquirer no longer uses this slogan, so searching its web site is no help. 71.219.245.63 (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't have to look any further than the earliest recorded NE page from 1997 at The Internet Archive (aka Wayback Machine). It is in fact spelled "Enquiring"; I'll amend the reference in the article accordingly. Steve Bob (talk) 13:47, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Whitewash

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

Three reverts by User:Sososos321 2010-05-02

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

Actually you are the one who is violating 3RR as you already undid another person's edit which I merely reintroduced. Sososos321 (talk) 02:56, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Negative, I am a Page Patroller. You really need to read WP:BLP. It does allow poorly sourced edits like this. If another experienced editor had disagreed with my reasoning, I would have been reverted. --Morenooso (talk) 02:58, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

It comes straight off the Enquirer's main page. That's as good as a source is going to get.Sososos321 (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

The issue was brought to the attention of Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard in this DIFF. --Morenooso (talk) 03:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged" no longer applies

• Since Edwards admitted to the affair, it is no longer an allegation.
• The appropriate word to describe the denial of the affair made by Edwards and his staff is "false". patsw (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Done. Some thought should be given to pruning away the suspicions of the Raleigh News-Observer that the story was fraudelent on the part NE. The are now moot. patsw (talk) 15:39, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the above, I removed the speculation on the low res photo as moot. patsw (talk) 16:59, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

"Someone wanting the truth about an issue appends the slogan to their demand as a catch phrase.[24]" Is this even intelligible english? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.193.213 (talk) 23:17, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Title of article

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

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

Requested move

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

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

---

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

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

David Furnish

Anyone wishing to write a section? Some sources:

• 2 oceans vibe
• National Enquirer
• Guido on "right to being forgotten" by Google
• Pop Goes The News
• Minichan
• News AU
• lawyers threatening media + about Laurence
• Daily Mail *very* angry about not being able to publish
• confirmation about scandal happening
• pjs vs yma names, april 7th
• PJS_v_News_Group_Newspapers
• Transcript (PDF)

∫ A Y^™ 18:38, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on National Enquirer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091205193345/http://www.historicpalmbeach.com/flashback/2009/12/the-worlds-largest-decorated-christmas-tree/ to http://www.historicpalmbeach.com/flashback/2009/12/the-worlds-largest-decorated-christmas-tree
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.fas.org/bwc/news/anthraxreport.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080202041421/http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/author/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003286768 to http://www.thebookstandard.com/bookstandard/news/author/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003286768
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0%2C1249%2C485033665%2C00.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:17, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on National Enquirer. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081120003440/http://www.courttv.com/news/smart/042903_tabloid_ap.html to http://www.courttv.com/news/smart/042903_tabloid_ap.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110927060256/http://www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0711condit.html to http://www.rcfp.org/news/2003/0711condit.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:54, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Automatic redirection?

When I click on the official website link: www.nationalenquirer.com, I get https://radaronline.com/, which looks like a mobile version. Do you experience the same? 85.193.242.83 (talk) 03:50, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

"Enquiring minds want to know" catchphrase not trademarked as Inquiring

This section has the correct date for the Trademark filing, but I don't see any mention of "Inquiring" in the trademark I was able to find. The reference is a bad link, but you can find a trademark filing here: . AMI filed a couple more trademarks in the 90's, but all of them I can find say Enquiring. Ryan (talk) 02:53, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

References

Notable articles

The Whitney Houston open-casket image is mentioned, but not the Elvis Presley open-casket image cover from 1977 which remains the most famous Enquirer front page. 136.159.160.8 (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Blocked in the UK/Europe

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

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

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

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

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

I can't access the site from my German IP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.33.151.126 (talk) 09:48, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

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

Cannot access from Finland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.251.248 (talk) 08:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

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

Redirects to Radar Online in the UK. ∫ A Y^™ 18:12, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

About an omission

Nothing here about Burnett v. National Enquirer, Inc.? It was probably the biggest story involving the National Enquirer during the 1970s, & the damages awarded Burnett could have put the publication out of business. (Comment from a long-term Wikipedian editing anonymously from work) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.134.139.82 (talk) 17:34, 8 February 2019 (UTC)