Talk:Fake news/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

DYK that the Pizzagate conspiracy theory originated in China? Neither did I.

I ran across this odd content, which has been in the article for nearly a year (February 17, 2017):

• In China, fake news items have occasionally spread from such sites to more well-established news-sites resulting in scandals including "Pizzagate".

It was made by an otherwise reputable editor here. I don't understand how that happened, but I'm going to remove it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:28, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

References

Empty section

In the Fake News by country -> Mexico section, it has no content. Only a link to the Main Article and no text below. So why don't you add some text from the Main Article to the section? Luisvallejomohl (talk) 00:40, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Because this particular country has an article devoted to the phenomenon of "fake news" there. There is no need to duplicate content already found in a separate article (and you clearly understood the purpose of the link). General Ization ^Talk 00:43, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Russia

Saying that Russia invests heavily in "fake news" to influence global opinion is a bold assertion. Saying that RT and Sputnik and other projects are associated with the Kremlin neither renders their reports fake nor real, nor does it imply that 50% are real and 50% contain inaccuracies. I don't doubt that pro-Kremlin agencies are well capable of producing fake news but we need actual examples: 1) What was reported which turned out fake? 2) How do we know today that it was fake? With regards the second question, is it the case that an item was exposed to be fake to the point Sputnik can no longer sustain the charade? Or it is simply the case that western media denied the Russian claim nolens volens thus convincing their own audience of the alleged "fake reporting"? See - it is very difficult to evaluate things without real examples. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 23:17, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

As far as I can see, this is about Russian influence and propaganda, not "fake news" as such. In fact, the Politico article says, "This is not 'fake news'". I think we should concentrate on fake news stories, not on broader issues. What if the same approach was taken with the US? You could say the media in the US had an American bias. You could say that the US attempts to influence other countries and interfere in their politics. Has this got much to do with fake news? No.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:52, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct. I'm happy to see Russian subheading when actual instances are provided. --Juicy Oranges (talk) 09:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Fake fake news

the newest use of the term, referring to mainstream news outlets that report facts the president doesnt agree with, has been coined as "fake fake news" by George Lakoff here [1]. I think we have to make a distinction here. after all, if the new definition of fake news is real news we dont like, that would pretty much end the Wikipedia projec

No, we don't. That's a single polemic, and the definition of 'fake news' doesn't get to change just because it was successfully appropriated from the opposition party. Stevo D (talk) 21:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

I think this section should be removed because it takes away from the rest of the page. If there were more information having to do with fake fake news then it would be more relevant, but with that not being the case it is more of a distraction with very information backing up it's claims. Brandonvadavis (talk) 17:00, 26 April 2017 (UTC)brandonvadavis

This is the primary use of the term. How could we not cover it? Elinruby (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Crisis Actors

We'd like to add information about crisis actor conspiracy theories. Frequently, after major events like school shootings, conspiracy theories emerge suggesting that the event was staged and those involved are actors pushing a political agenda. This accusation was common in the 20th century around race-related issues (such as the claim that the Little Rock Nine were paid actors). More recently, many conspiracy theories have doubted the validity of school shootings. This is especially relevant to the Stoneman Douglas High School shooting, as many student survivors (most notably David Hogg) have campaigned actively for gun control and been accused of being crisis actors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luther&Locke (talk • contribs) 23:02, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a good example Elinruby (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Singapore

A sentence under Countries, Singapore is too closely paraphrased from the original source. The sentence is, "The image was created by a student to demonstrate to his classmates how fake news could be easily created and propagated." Aj4nup9c (talk) 05:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Countries

Russia is mentioned heavily throughout the entire article, yet it is missing it is missing from the section that breaks down the fake news by country. Aj4nup9c (talk) 05:29, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

"A Small city in Macedonia"

Said small city has a name - Veles - as confirmed by source.95.148.20.9 (talk) 11:25, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done, thanks.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:14, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

20th century. The "soft" fakenewsmaking in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In May 1926, a General strike broke out in the UK, which temporarily interrupted the release of newspapers, and with the shortage of news BBC unexpectedly became the main source of news at the time of a long crisis.

  "The resulting coverage of both striker and government viewpoints impressed millions of listeners who were unaware that the PM had broadcast to the nation from Reith's home, using one of Reith's sound bites inserted at the last moment, or that the BBC had banned broadcasts from the Labour Party and delayed a peace appeal by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Supporters of the strike nicknamed the BBC the BFC for British Falsehood Company. Reith personally announced the end of the strike which he marked by reciting from Blake's "Jerusalem" signifying that England had been saved." -  Crook, Tim (2002). "International Radio Journalism". Routledge. Abakanetz (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 16:10, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2018

Hello. I'd like New Zealand to be added to the countries list for fake news. And Id also like to the following under the NZ header: All New Zealand main stream media is censored by the NZ governments direction. It should be read with this in mind. I am a NZer and have found this to be a true and accurate account for NZ fake news. MNZGA (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC) MNZGA (talk) 05:47, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done Yeah that's going to need a source. Good luck with that. Fish+Karate 12:51, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 June 2018

Please add this entry to Further Reading:

• "The Cyper Peace Dodecalogy" - a book made completely out of fake news on indymedia by an Usenet news pioneer and Anonymous (group) activist 2015-2018 2003:A:152D:8700:B0A8:96E:7DBB:C07A (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: We try to write an article about it, we don't promote it via external links. Sam Sailor 17:51, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Author CPD 04.07.: So did I. Good luck. Seriously. When I had produced a dozen articles about it, I wrote a Preface to keep the intent clear. And again. And again. This book shares the experience of trying to write a proper article about it in an environment totally polluted by it. I will not bother you with spoilers, but just in case you might get bored of your effort getting stuck on stupid and be looking for a way out of the Big Lie, here it is -- real, free, creative commons. Again -- Good luck. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.224.169.104 (talk) 10:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Author CPD 23.07.: No one answering? Unlike suspected by "Sam Sailor," my book does not promote abuse of truth as a resource of forgery. Why is it still not being mentioned where it belongs? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waldspaziergänger (talk • contribs) 13:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not a vehicle for self-promotion. If you would like information about your book to be added to Wikipedia, promote it elsewhere so Wikipedia has reliable, third-party sources to cite when an article is written about your book. If there is useful information for which your book could be used as a citation, then it could be used in that way, but it shouldn't be added to this article as an external link just to provide an example of fake news. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Author CPD 03.08.: Been there, done that -- in the small community of indymedia it has been a beacon of truth for years. But with the global fake news level rising at the pace it does, most of the indymedia archipelago is already drowned in it. Here on Wikipedia it is being mentioned as an example of defending a community against fake news flooding by writing a satirical antidote that enables readers to identify forged content from its phoney ring. The use of humour for the purpose of the restoration of truthfulness could be considered useful information by people interested in countering fake news in their communities, hence this source is being offered for free to your readers for their greater enlightenment, joy and success. -- Waldspaziergänger (talk) 16:31, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: Unfortunately, adding this link to the article would violate Wikipedia's external links policy. Please consider using social networking websites to promote your content, instead.​ — Newslinger talk 10:23, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Author CPD 30.09..: Link changed, because another indymedia site has been drowned by fake news. @Newslinger: I do not see a violation. Wikipedia provides external links for additional information on the issue concerned, and my proposal fits this purpose very well. Oh by the way, I do not use so-called "social media" as a matter of principle, because they are fake content. Please upgrade your article. -- Waldspaziergänger (talk) 21:06, 30 September 2018 (UTC) Waldspaziergänger (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Is media too biased to use as a source?

Seeing how this article is against media, can we really trust media sources to be truthful? Think about it, if Trump says the New York Times is bad, should we use articles from the New York Times as the only source of the info? Obviously, in this case, the New York Times would have a conflict of interest, and could potentially be VERY biased. 75.177.11.11 (talk) 18:37, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

This article isn't against media, it isn't against anything, it merely describes the concept of "fake news". Moreover content regarding Trump uses a plethora of different sources, and Trump saying New York Times is bad has no influence here whatsoever. BeŻet (talk) 19:54, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Improving Opening/Definition

The article currently states in the first sentence "Fake news is a type of...". I think it's important to note that fake news is described as a neologism in Definition, which is an important aspect. Perhaps it should say "Fake news is a neologism that (typically) describes a type of..." instead? --GDP Growth (talk) 03:36, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi
The term appears to be widely used, by large and reliable sources like The Guardian and The New York Times. Describing it as a "neologism" is definitely an interesting detail, but might be unnecessary in the lead section. The lead section should not become too complex. See WP:INTRO:

Editors should avoid lengthy paragraphs and overly specific descriptions – greater detail is saved for the body of the article.

I would even consider removing the term "yellow journalism" from the first sentence.

In general, introduce useful abbreviations, but avoid difficult-to-understand terminology and symbols.

(also from WP:INTRO). ~ ToBeFree (talk) 06:58, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Major proposal

I'm proposing a somewhat major change in the first paragraph and possibly more, that would improve the specificity of "fake news" as a cultural phenomenon. Not too major a change, but adding and removing a few sentences. My reason for nominating this page for deletion was that it appears to violate WP:NAD. But, a kind user pointed out that the term can be construed as a cultural phenomenon. We should make this clear. I'm not proposing anything specific because this TP seems a little inactive and I'm unsure if anyone will add suggestions, but I'm willing to work out the changes. -GDP⇧ 06:59, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

GDP Growth, I'd say: Go ahead per WP:BOLD. If someone doesn't like it, they can still revert and join the discussion. Your first proposal above has gone unanswered since 12 August, despite 165 people watchlisting the page. Let's make the change and see what happens. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:19, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Macedonia's Pro-Trump Fake News Industry Had American Links...

Veles only gets a one sentence mention, but it deserves far more:

• Macedonia’s Pro-Trump Fake News Industry Had American Links, And Is Under Investigation For Possible Russia Ties. An investigation reveals that the fake news sites that flourished in Macedonia in 2016 weren’t just the work of local teens — and that security agencies are probing possible connections to Russia."

References

BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:45, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Agree, and maybe useful elsewhere.Slatersteven (talk) 15:21, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Bias.

Honestly Wikipedia. I'm disappointed. This article is very evidently politically biased, much like almost every other article relating to Trump. How objective is it that you never consider the possibility of what Trump considers fake news to be nonobjective. I'm really disappointed. The section on Donald Trump assumes everything he says is false without outlining the proof or offering any objective sources. Again. Very disappointed. Every source used is a known leftist leaning sources, the very ones President Trump label "fake news". I'm a youth.I'm also Canadian I don't really support either side as I don't care. I'm Canadian. However, when I watch the news, I really can't say I trust what I'm hearing to be objective. Goodiesohhi (talk) 00:31, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

@Goodiesohhi: Please note that article talk pages are not forums. As such, instead of hypothetical accusations or general rants I recommend to cite reliable sources, or to point at specific ones that are questionable, or where they are not properly summarized. Or to improve the article yourself, per WP:BRD. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:49, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

We go with what RS say.Slatersteven (talk) 08:27, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Do we have to respond to all criticisms with templates?--Jack Upland (talk) 09:43, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

What template?Slatersteven (talk) 11:06, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2018

Add To Definition:

This edible mushroom (detail: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Laetiporus_sulphureus_liegend_detail.jpg, top view: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Laetiporus_sulphureus_liegend_Draufsicht.jpg), when fried accordingly, by most people is likely to be mistaken for chicken´s white meat. However, it can easily be identified as fake meat since it contains zero barn pesticides or other ingredients of animal farming.

Waldspaziergänger (talk) 14:13, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Fake news. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 14:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Huh? This is an accurate improvement request for the definition of fake news. The proposal is to use a botanic reference for self-evident illustration purposes of what fake news is. But I am getting the impression I am wasting my time here with regulars not interested in inprovements beyond their biases, and might have been overestimating Wikipedia as a means for solving deep cultural problems such as the systemic abuse of the freedom of speech for propaganda purposes by intelligence agencies. -- Waldspaziergänger (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Here's a definition, Fake News: What the big news company calls the little news company. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a601:3260:568:8ae:fc95:7a80:a8ae (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2018‎ (UTC)

Waldspaziergänger and 2605:a601:3260:568:8ae:fc95:7a80:a8ae, please have a look at Wikipedia:No original research. Thank you. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 07:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 July 2018

Fake new is not real but it is real. User69696969420 (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

@User69696969420: This makes no sense whatsoever. Home Lander (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Concern Regarding Information Construction and Discouraging Dissent

Given the vast history concerning various iterations of "Fake News" throughout world history, this article is shockingly lacking. The article purports to explore the concept of "Fake News," but practically every footnote and source is focused on 2016 and onward, specifically from an American perspective. The fact that this page labels itself a "Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment" is even more concerning. The entire article reads like some sort of American political vehicle.

For example, to title a Wikipedia article "Fake News," and then begin the section on China with "Fake news during the 2016 U.S. election spread to China," is woefully misinformed and misguided. Why would the Chinese care about the U.S. presidential election? Such is not explained. Isn't this section supposed to be on China? This entire piece, under its current title, masquerades as something it is not, which is a piece on "Fake News." To the contrary, this piece is specifically focused in a very defined time frame written from an overwhelmingly American perspective. The narrowness of the views concerning some countries paint a very unfortunate picture for both Wikipedia and the individuals involved in the "Wiki Education Foundation." For example, note the section under the Finland:

"Officials from 11 countries held a meeting in Helsinki in November 2016, in order to plan the formation of a center to combat disinformation cyber-warfare including spread of fake news on social media."

It is concerning that there is no mention of anything regarding "Fake News" in Finland prior to November 2016. Why is this article so painfully centered on America? Furthermore, why is it so painfully focused on the American Presidential Election? It suggests not only that Finland lacked any interest in combating "Fake News" prior to November of 2016, but it openly dismisses anything Finnish which would or could combat "Fake News" prior to that date. How is such an article focused on world wide "Fake News" if this is how the article is being composed?

This article would better be labelled under "The Notion of Fake News During the 2016 American Presidential Election." Such would properly place these sections, and footnotes (overwhelmingly from 2016 onward) in its proper capacity.

Additionally, given the piece is sourced only during a certain time period (2016 onward) from overwhelmingly American sources, it openly calls its overall accuracy into question. Additionally, any page which greets potential editors with the sentences is questionable:

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fake news article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject."

This openly states that general discussion, free speech, concerning the article's content, is unacceptable. Only improvements to its content. If Wikipedia chooses to remain relevant, crafting articles in this manner must be appropriately side-lined. This language is openly chilling to free speech. This article, in its current state, is itself an example of what most people around the world regard as "Fake News," and it should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ExcitedforWiki (talk • contribs) 06:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

For new content to enter a Wikipedia article, someone has to know the material and add it. If someone actually knows instances of significant fake news from pre-2016 China, they can add it to the country section and it will enrich the article. The emphasis on the present is because it's a topic of our times.

My wish is that the article would be clearer about the history of the rise of the term "fake news" in 2016. For many of us, we see it primarily as Trump's designation for the misbehaving mainstream media. Where did that come from? Did he invent it? Was it first used by some obscure conservative pundit, perhaps in response to the liberal designation of Fox News as "Faux News"? What about the echo of the Nazi term "lying press", is that there by design?

And we could also do with a history of the mainstream media's attempt to defend itself by writing articles e.g. about obscure websites with fabricated news stories that are circulating on social media, and saying "that's the real 'fake news'". In fact, to a great extent this article seems to be a compilation of events, topics, and definitions that were advanced precisely in order to counteract Trump's use of the term. Mporter (talk) 23:25, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Germany had a whole history with the Lying press, as do conspiracy theorists in general who mistrust (and sometimes legitimately so) the mainstream media, or as US Conservative pundits called it, lamestream media. Shushugah (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I added a link to the Wikipedia article on Lying press some weeks ago and it was almost instantly deleted. I moved it to the section on Germany, which is sort of fine, but really this long history seems crucial to the topic as a whole and not just Germany. Lijil (talk) 20:41, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

This article is becoming more and more wrong

Really, honestly, it was someone's attempt to define what Hillary Clinton said was happening in the 2016 election. I and others worked with the article's author at the time, who really was trying to do the right thing in good faith, but the current US president has hijacked the term and it is no longer being used in anything approaching the meaning described here. Someone's suggestion that we call it "fake news in the 2016 US election" or someothing like that is probably the best or at least easiest way to address this. This will require documenting the first few times Trump used the term, but this would be better than struggling to reconcile Trump's use of the term with Clinton's use of the term. I really don't think there is a middle ground there.

I would actually prefer that we delete the article altogether -- the term is inherently divisive at this point and AGF is unlikely to take place here -- but I don't think there will be a consensus for this suggestion. Oh and, I am preoccupied with other matters, so I cannot remedy this issue myself. I spent a significant chunk of time on it when it was created, policing the sourcing. If someone can suggest a discussion board I might be able to be post it there in a week or two. Elinruby (talk) 00:05, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't think something as trivial as Trump's recent misleading usage of the term matters... In any case, for more input, possibly that WP:FTN would suit? My impression is that this article should be more general than about 2016-2018. —PaleoNeonate – 02:42, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Agree, it may be there could be an argument for a separate article (though I am not sure, it was one US election). Donnies uses of the word does not overturn 100+ years of the phrase, he is just a here today gone tommorow politician. His views should be noted, not dominate.Slatersteven (talk) 09:24, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Elinruby, I hear your anguish, but don't see exactly what has inspired it, as your last edits were in June. What kind of problem(s) do you see, and do you have a proposed solution?

I see Trump's gross misuse of the term, which is concentrated in the 21st Century section, and a section about his misuse of the term. His name is scattered about a few other places. Should we split the article, so this one only deals with real fake news, and then another devoted to his misuse? Would that be a good idea? Suggested titles...hmmm.... Fake news (Trump misuse), Fake news (negative to Trump)? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 02:37, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

OK look, we shoehorned the history in since the article was going to get written no matter what. But I personally had never heard the specific term 'fake news" before Hillary Clinton used it. Broadsheets and tabloids absolutely existed and come to think of it, if we don't have article(s) about that history, then we should. But they weren't called "fake news" then, and if wikipedia is going to have an article about deception practiced by the press, may I suggest that this is not the most encyclopedic term? I don't mean to insult anyone who is currently working on the article, by the way, but I hated the article scope then and I hate it now.

But. My concern is that at least in the United States, the term is almost exclusively used by Trumpsters to describe news stories that are annoyingly true. That is not at all what random googlers would get if they searched the term, where this article comes up number one in the search listing. And then they get this TL;DR discussion/enumeration of press deception. I disagree with the assessment that Trump's pronouncements are not relevant, incidentally. There is a danger of recentism of course, but that is already what got us to here really... If anyone can show me uses of this actual term a hundred years ago, I'll withdraw that objection however. PS - I realize that I haven't edited the article in a while, but thanks for mentioning it. I wrote it off as a bad I couldn't fix a long time ago, and originally got into it because someone had some sort of something about it at NPOV. However unfortunately the term has not gone out of use but now means something completely different. So this is just me, saying.

Proposal -- How about a see also? to Fake news as used by Donald Trump? Or some better title than that?Elinruby (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

definition - who is Claire Wardle?

we devote a lot of space to quoting her Elinruby (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias of Information

I find bias in this article's reference of Buzzfeed as a source for polling information which claimed that more Fake News was noticed on social media more than actual news on large media outlets. Buzzfeed has also been know to produce and published non-credible articles as well.

Also, the article does not include a link to this claim with a credible article. Showing there is not a credible article to back this "statistic" is part of the reason this should be removed from the Wikipedia publication. Jbalon (talk) 19:39, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't follow Buzzfeed myself, but the WP article seems to give it credibility. See BuzzFeed#Content. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 20:07, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

BuzzFeed is spammy at times, and used to be borderline clickbait, but recentlt its coverage of breaking news is often reputable enough to be cited by more traditional outlets such as the Washington Post. That's my impression anyway. I am sure this question was been asked at WP:RS, and if some other consensus has been reached there we should go with that. Elinruby (talk) 07:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is accused of being Fake News. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/819000924207251456?lang=en 75.177.11.11 (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Goodness, if we decide that nothing that Trump dislikes can be a reliable source we are in trouble. Lijil (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

The Buzzfeed article has some legitimacy because it is cited and referenced in many research papers (See Guess and Nyhan). I wouldn't assume that it's a bad source just because it's Buzzfeed. Also how do you see bias in Buzzfeed's polling? --Liamharvey21 (talk) 18:01, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Bias? - No mention of Hillary Clinton's usage of the term

It is my understanding that it was Hillary Clinton who introduced the term fake news into the mainstream. As reported in the Washington Post, Trump only began using the term two days after Clinton's address on Dec. 8, 2016 in which she said "one threat in particular that should concern all Americans … [is] the epidemic of malicious fake news and false propaganda that flooded social media over the past year." I remember at the time there was an suspicion that the term fake news could be used to discredit alternative media outlets (e.g., Breitbart) and so it appears Trump appropriated the term to ensure it couldn't be used against him. Why is it that there is no mention of Hillary Clinton's usage of the term in this article? Focus seems to be put on Trump's usage of the term while this compensatory context is not provided.

I particularly take issue with the overview of the article which contains the sentence: "During and after his presidential campaign and election, Donald Trump popularized the term 'fake news'." I can't find corroborating information that Donald Trump used the term fake news during his presidential campaign within the associated citations and there was already buzz building around fake news before Trump used the term himself (which contradicts Trump being the one who popularized the term). It would also be appropriate if before that sentence, there was a sentence illustrating Hillary Clinton's usage of the term - bringing to light why Trump started using the term himself. Jamieday (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what the issue is. Clinton's use is indeed mentioned, and also how Trump's meaning is very different than the real meaning. Here's what we have in the article:

In the United States in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election, fake news was particularly prevalent and spread rapidly over social media "bots", according to researchers at the Oxford Internet Institute. In a speech shortly after the election, former Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton warned of the "real-world consequences" of fake news. Shortly thereafter, in the early weeks of his presidency, U.S. President Donald Trump frequently used the term "fake news" to refer to traditional news media, singling out CNN. Linguist George Lakoff says this creates confusion about the phrase's meaning. According to CBS 60 Minutes, President Trump may use the term fake news to describe any news, however legitimate or responsible, with which he may disagree.

Sources

Is there a problem with that, or is there another issue? How about suggesting some wording, with RS, that would fix the issue? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

See also

• Alarmism
• Alternative facts
• Climate change denial
• Confirmation bias
• Conspiracy theory
• Demoralization (warfare)
• Fearmongering
• Information quality
• Internet meme
• Journalism ethics and standards
• Lügenpresse – German phrase
• Media bias
• Media coverage of North Korea
• Pseudohistory 176.98.214.65 (talk) 09:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2018

Please add information quality to the section "See Also", as below:

 Done --Juicy Oranges (talk) 12:16, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Operation Infektion

Editors active here may be interested in reading and building out Operation Infektion. This was a 1980s Soviet disinformation campaign that was uncovered by the U.S. State Department. It was recently featured in a series of New York Times videos as a precursor to Russia's modern disinformation practices and its interference in the 2016 U.S. elections. The main problem with our article on the subject is that it relies almost exclusively on a single State Department report. However there's no shortage of independent news articles, peer-reviewed journal entries, and reputably published books on the subject. The article could be expanded on and made more robust by using such independent sources. R2 (bleep) 16:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Media Vs medium

Your argument is sound, even if your method of putting it forward is most definitely not. I fervently hope you don't teach the same way you edit. I've self reverted, so you can get off your knees now. Chaheel Riens (talk) 11:42, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

What have I missed?Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Russia

It's odd that the article doesn't have a section for Russia. The Russian government, as well as government controlled news sources such as RT, often dismiss things as "fake news". They are also widely attributed as spreading fake news across the globe, from Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 to the Syrian civil war to US and French elections to the Macedonian referendum and surely many more. Unfortunately I probably too many other tasks on my plate to work on it myself. Alsee (talk) 20:34, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Most likely because it is just that common to read about it in the west. Fell free to add a section.Slatersteven (talk) 09:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, and if you read carefully the 'Ukraine' section (possibly written by some 'Russian information agent' or whatever they call themselves) you'll understand why there is no 'Russia' section at all, and why there is " ...StopFake was created by Ukrainian activists in 2014 to debunk fake news in Ukraine " instead of " ... about Ukraine ". By the way you should give a try to that StopFake website. A whole bunch of fake news 'from Russia with love' are being discussed there too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.214.82.61 (talk) 08:33, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

US WW1 and recentism

Too much of this article focuses on the recent US elections. Federal fake news was even more rampant during e.g. WW1, see Zezen (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Where do we draw the line about entries that are just "mentions" of fake news

Sorry to use you as an example, User:Tobby72, and I may be told I'm wrong, but the entry that start "On 20 March 2017 the British tabloid newspaper Daily Mirror painted the traditional Russian pancake celebration"[2] is basically just a mention of an accusation. Why is Wikipedia calling it fake news? Doug Weller talk 14:03, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering what made this worthy of inclusion.Slatersteven (talk) 14:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of well sourced material

WP:RS material was deleted by Slatersteven. His objection was that it was "one store." Further sources were added, including from journalism's most prestigious publication, the Poynter Institute, showing that it is not "one store".

By early 2019, the term "fake news" had become verboten and U.S. journalists, including the Poynter Institute were asking for apologies and for product retirements from companies using the term.

Instead of realizing his mistake, Slatersteven deleted both sources, including from the Poynter Institute, in violation of WP:PRESERVE. Sad, really. XavierItzm (talk) 23:04, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Facebook

Hi, RaphaelQS. Thank you for the revert. I agree my addition of the photo of Mr. Zuckerberg was over the top. However the problem with Facebook remains and is documented in the case of vaccinations back to last October, so this is not recentism or WP:NOTNEWS. Here are results just from the first two pages of Google results: The Telegraph, The Telegraph, BBC News, The BMJ, The Independent, Healthline, The Guardian, USA Today, USA Today, USA Today, Nature, Vox, The Spectator. The World Health Organization is not universally respected but comes very close, and is not WP:UNDUE. As a compromise, I removed the image of Zuckerberg and left only Facebook. I am trying to be clear here, but I haven't contributed to this article in some time. I would support for example changing the caption but do not want to venture into WP:ORIG. What do you think? -SusanLesch (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps a more generalized caption about Facebook and recent fake news would make sense, giving vaccination as an example. I'm not sure yet how that would read. Your opinion? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Initial Observations

I am providing thoughts and suggestions regarding potentially improving this article for the better. It seems that each fact is referenced with an appropriate source. I searched through many sources, and of the first five I explored, all of the sources seemed legitimate. All of the links I checked work correctly, as well. The only complicated part of deciphering which sources are credible is that some of them seem very opinionated. In some cases, the bias is clearly noted and further explained. From first glance, it is obvious that some sources are very far-leaning politically. One example is New York Times, which is a generally democratic news source. Surely, news regarding Trump will always be negative, highlighting issues regarding the President and other conservative ideas. Media Bias works both ways, with political agendas rooted very deeply within information. When reading news, I look for strong numbers and information accompanied by minimal political and emotional involvement. When reading news from the New York Times, I find myself getting annoyed by little jabs taken at conservatism, as well as those tied to the party. In the article “Trump’s Lies,” I was often distracted by the repetition of opinions about Trump. I don’t necessarily align myself with either main party, so I can overlook much of the bias, but sometimes it just makes information hard to believe. As for the article itself, everything seems fairly neutral. Sometimes small biases can be missed, but as a whole, the article did a good job of explaining the background of the term “Fake News,” as well as how it is has been very popularized over the past two to three years. The information in this article was up to date, but there is always room for new legitimate articles and updates to be added. Alexyoung1999 (talk) 21:29, 20 February 2019 (UTC)Alex Young

Semi-protected edit request on 15 February 2019

{{subst:trim|1= Change the align "left" to right" since it breaks the location of the table of content

SeongMoon08 (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

References

 Already done It appears that this has already been fixed in later edits. If you feel it wasn't, please reopen this request.  DiscantX 01:04, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 January 2019

The subject of Fake News in Poland, and statements coming from Jerzy Targalski are not supported by any factual evidence. Mr. Targalski is known from being biased towards news coming from news outlets which are not favorable for his world views, and he shouldn't be treated as a credible source. Not only has he never presented any evidence to support his allegations but he even openly supported polish governing party Law and Justice. According to rules governing the process of creating Wikipedia Articles, he should not be a part of this article. Matisałke (talk) 11:12, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually I have to ask who is he, what are his credentials (as he does not appear to be a noted historian)? However we do attribute his views. But his party affiliation is irrelevant. So I can see merit form both sides here.Slatersteven (talk) 11:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Research Findings on Fake News (Identifying, Tracking, Combating, etc.)

For the 21st century section, there seems to be a lack of information regarding the research being conducted on fake news. There has been a lot of interesting machine learning and data science research regarding identifying and tracking fake news in mainstream and social media.

I think this would a great subsection to add in the 21st century portion of the article. It would be a summarization of the research studies basically showcasing how data enables us to find patterns in fake news and how research using machine learning enables us to detect fake news with a high confidence. Some of the research also shows how new technology can help people filter out fake news.

There are a lot of great unbiased research papers regarding this topic, and I think it would be a great addition to the article. I have listed some of the sources that I have found down below. If anyone can share their opinions on this, that would be great!

Sources:

• Fake News Detection on Social Media: A Data Mining Perspective (Source: SIGKDD)
• Less than you think: Prevalence and predictors of fake news dissemination on Facebook (Source: Science Advances)
• Detecting fake news at its source (Source: MIT News)
• How Fake News Goes Viral: A Case Study (Source: The New York Times)
• Combating Fake News: An Agenda for Research and Action (Source: Harvard Kennedy School)

Siddkumaran (talk) 10:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential Addition regarding India

In India during 2018 alone, at least 24 people were killed during incidents relating to false rumors spread about them(1). Specifically, in one case, two Indian men were lynched and killed due to them being rumored to partake in child abduction(1). They had seen a video which led them to this result. “The video they had seen was actually an instructional safety video made in Pakistan, but was shared with some text warning about kidnappers in the local area, causing fear and anger among the community,” states time.com(2). A Hindu nationalist movement in India has influenced WhatsApp, conspiring in an anti-muslim effort. The Indian government has had a very hard time controlling this epidemic of Fake News(3). As a result of this WhatsApp disinformation issue, many have lost their lives. Indian Police and officials of their government estimate that over two dozen have been killed by mob activity, mainly occurring due to this media problem(4).

Is this the news media spreading this?Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(1)https://www.bbc.com/news/world-46146877

(2)http://time.com/5352516/india-whatsapp-fake-news/

(3)https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/nov/12/whatsapp-struggling-control-fake-news-india-bbc-study-hindu-nationalism-cheap-mobile-data

(4)https://www.wired.com/story/how-whatsapp-fuels-fake-news-and-violence-in-india/

Alexyoung1999 (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)Alexander Young

Colombia

I intend to add a section about fake news in Colombia. It will be about the fake news spread through Whatsapp. Taliazapata (talk) 17:17, 6 March 2019 (UTC)Talia Zapata March 6, 2019

Can Kaya - Fake News Article Review

The introduction paragraph of the article gives a precise definition of the term "fake news". The second sentence gives sounds like it gives a personal opinion with no evidence (source). "The false information is often caused by" could be rephrased and supported with a source. The introduction paragraph does a good job explaining the term "fake news" but would be more complete with additional sources and cited information.

Definition: the definition section of the article is very accurate and is supported by sources. It gives a very good idea of the meaning of the term and uses different perspectives to describe "fake news".

Identifying: the main points of the identification section might require a citation as they seem to be the main points of the IFLA.

The history of "fake news" provides relevant information supported with sources to help readers understand that the term didn't exist only after President Trump used it but has a historical context going back to the 13th Century BC.

The "On The Internet" section does not contain any context and this is a very important part of this article as the "fake news" saying of President Trump was viral on the internet and social media. Some of the social media and internet posts could be mentioned in this section.

The first part of the "Usage of the term by Donald Trump" requires more citation from credible sources as only the closing sentence of the paragraph is cited to a source.

The "Criticism of the Term" section of the article is very relevant to the topic and allows readers to view it from a variety of perspectives.

The "Fake news by country" section of the article is very important because some people only relate "fake news" to President Trump and the United States. However, this section provides evidence from various countries around the world that fake news does not only exist in the US but also in other countries. However I couldn't understand how and why these particular countries were picked to describe in the article. Why are some countries like Turkey Iran Denmark etc. left out? I believe that this is a ipmortant detail that could improve the article to the next level. I personally know that Turkey has various Fake News problems arising from political movements such as the Gezi Protests. Mentioning these with credible sources would be very useful for this article.

Overall the article is in very good shape and with more source and evidence based information it can be great. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CanKaya1 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Suggestions and Formatting of the article

Some of the formatting of the article could be improved so that it is easier to read, for example some the headings under the 21st century section could be grouped into one section, such as the sub-headings "in websites", "bots on social media", "and internet trolls" could all just be grouped into the category named something like "online presence", since having the numerous sub-headings makes it seem a little convoluted. Afterwards, I think it would also be great to elaborate more on the online aspect of the article, such as social media (Twitter, Facebook, etc.) and how it was able to gain momentum through those tools.

The headings "Usage of the term by Jair Bolsonaro" and "Usage of the term by Donald Trump" could also be grouped into its own sections that lists some of the prominent figures that used the term.

Angelacaooo (talk) 01:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)Angelacaooo

I propose the following edits in terms of grammar and information:

"President Trump has claimed that the mainstream American media regularly reports fake news. His usage of the term has increased the distrust of the American media globally, particularly in Russia. His claims have given credibility to stories in the Russian media that label American news, especially news about atrocities committed by the Syrian regime against its own people, where it was quoted that "munitions at the air base had as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq", as just more fake American news.

Trump has carried on a war against the mainstream media, often attacking it as "fake news" and "the "enemy of the people."

In addition, I think it would benefit this section to have another example of a fake news that was propelled by President Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikay677 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Proud to be Black

This is a relevant Wall Street Journal story from last month about how Russian disinformation trolls created a fake news story at proudtobeblack.org and promoted it with Wikipedia, Twitter, and Tumblr in 2015. Use as you will. A cached version of the story is available on Google for those who don't have WSJ subscriptions. R2 (bleep) 18:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Archived and fully readable link here. R2 (bleep) 17:13, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Section Edits: Usage of the term by Donald Trump

I propose the following edits in terms of grammar and information:

"President Trump has claimed that the mainstream American media regularly reports fake news. His usage of the term has increased the distrust of the American media globally, particularly in Russia. His claims have given credibility to stories in the Russian media that label American news, especially news about atrocities committed by the Syrian regime against its own people, where it was quoted that "munitions at the air base had as much to do with chemical weapons as the test tube in the hands of Colin Powell had to do with weapons of mass destruction in Iraq", as just more fake American news.

Trump has carried on a war against the mainstream media, often attacking it as "fake news" and "the "enemy of the people."

In addition, I think it would benefit this section to have another example of a fake news that was propelled by President Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erikay677 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Erikay677 - it would have to be attributed to the RS who said it, have a cite added, and then would be given space it is DUE proportionate to its prominence along with whatever competing POVs. Which seems likely be none of them deserving any space. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:16, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Twitter blocks French government with its own fake news law

This is hilarious, please include it in France section.https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47800418.Sourcerery (talk) 16:05, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

legitimate news not defined

The article says "Fake news undermines serious media coverage". The article is thus perpetuating a myth that the mainstream media takes news reporting seriously, and would never knowingly report fake news in spite of the fact that doing so makes them money. Manipulation of news is essentially their stock in trade, most noticeable on a slow news day. Fake news(the assertion that only a small percentage of news is fake) is itself, fake news. The news has always been full of the kinds of misdirection mentioned in the article and more. The media coverage of the US led invasion of Iraq is a classic example of how devoid of principles most media outlets are. Almost all media coverage on political issues has an angle and is deliberately biased. The article should mention that there are no real standards in news reporting and that a conflict of interest exists between any news organisation which relies on views for revenue and journalistic integrity i.e there is a financial incentive to beat a story up with manipulated content including outright lies from unnamed sources. When journalistic principles such as avoiding bias are considered, almost all mainstream, government and corporate news qualifies as fake news. 101.184.32.2 (talk) 04:21, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you have an RS to support this claim?Slatersteven (talk) 11:25, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a common error to conflate the attitude of management with the attitude of the workers. For example, I often hear how "the police support the gun rights of citizens," when the verifiable truth is that the upper levels (e.g., sheriff or police chief) are elected or political appointees, while the cops and deputies really wish there were fewer armed yahoos running around.

Similarly, EICs and owners are power-brokers, while many (if not most) reporters at least attempt to create a truth-based story to entertain (sometimes even inform) readers. Compare Yellow journalism to Muckraker.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 18:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Do you have any RS to suppot the contrary claim? As in, can you trust a RS to stay so and remain unbiased when attacked? The ones that are reliable and unbiased will rightly claim such, but so will most other biased and unreliable sources neglecting to own up to their mistakes, however few or many.

Just as you can't use what Hollywood says to discuss trends in movie quality (instead requiring critics to be a third party), you also can't use news to discuss trends in percieved nor actual quality in news media, yet most of the sources for such articles rely on news media, on both sides of the argument! ...It's a sad, inescapable conundrum, as the only ones to talk of such a recent thing would be the news media themselves.78.30.17.102 (talk) 15:10, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Russian Invasion of Estonia Hoax?

Atlanticist German TV television presenter Claus Kleber mentioned an alleged Russian Invasion of Estonia in German TV News which he later discovered as a lie.--217.92.58.201 (talk) 09:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I do not think we need a list of every example.Slatersteven (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on April 3 2019

The subject of fake news in Saudi Arabia.

1. The Global News is a pro-Canadian news network claiming that Alarabiya has suggested something false. The Global News is falsely accusing Alarabiya of spreading fake news. Alarabiya has made clear that Canada has hypocritically imprisoned peaceful protesters which Global News is the only one to simply deny without substantiation.
2. Twitter bot accounts spreading pro-Saudi talking points does not necessarily mean that the pro-Saudi perspective was fake. This is under the umbrella of propaganda which is not necessarily spreading a hoax.
3. I can't find Saudi Arabia's Office of Public Prosecution's tweet. The sources claiming this tweet exists are Newsweek and Aljazeera, but Aljazeera is anti-Saudi and is pointing to Newsweek's article as proof of the tweet. Newsweek's article doesn't provide a link or image to it, they simply quote it.

I request that all these 3 paragraphs either be removed or tagged as unreliable. --Sultanic (talk) 15:24, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The Global News is attributed, we do not claim it is true. The Twitter thing is valid, why is this fake news?. The Office of Public Prosecution's tweet passage needs attibutation, as it is an accusation, not a fact.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

If it's attributation, then it should include "According to X" rather than simply stating it as it is. Also the Aljazeera source isn't adding anything, it simply points to the first source, so it should be removed. --Sultanic (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It almost does, but I can see your point now. It needs a comma not a full stop at the end of the first sentence. So can any one give a reason against these changes?Slatersteven (talk) 16:17, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

It's more than just the first sentence. The (updated) changes I request are:

1. Move "According to the Global News" to the beginning of the 1st paragraph.
2. Add "According to Newsweek" (which might I add, doesn't have a widespread longstanding consensus as a WP:RS) at the beginning of the 3rd paragraph.
3. Remove reference [277] "Pompeo, Khashoggi and the problem MBS created". Al-Jazeera. 16 October 2018. as it isn't adding anything new.

--Sultanic (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Still waiting on a justification as to why this edit should not be made.Slatersteven (talk) 08:18, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

This sure is a long waiting time... --Sultanic (talk) 15:57, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Reference 112 discussing conservatives consume and spread more fake news, is fake news.

This reference takes you to a study that supposedly supports the belief that Conservatives consume, and spread more fake news than any other political grouping. The study has many faults - One being how it defines fake news, another on how they grouped these Twitter users and many others. None of it matters because this "study" defines itself as a Draft Memo. They later acknowledge in the About The Project section "Data Memos are designed to present quick snapshots of analysis on current events in a short format. They reflect methodological experience and considered analysis, but have not been peer-reviewed." Data Memos aren't studies in their own words.

Then in the ACKNOWLEDGMENTS AND DISCLOSURES section it states "Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation, the European Research Council, the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, or the University of Oxford."

The paragraph starts off stating a study by Oxford University. In their own study, the reference that was posted as proof conservatives consume and spread more fake news, they literally state it doesn't reflect the views of the University of Oxford.

I believe any and all paragraphs stating conservatives consume and spread more fake news should be completely removed or a different "source" should be provided. WhowinsIwins (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Valid point about the draft memeo, if this is not a scholarly study then why is it being used?Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Fake hair? Fake teeth? Fake buttocks? Fake breasts?

Are these so widely used and embedded in the published images of many celebrities, including politicians, that they constitute a form of fake news? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.175.56.45 (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Irrelevant to the criteria/definition for this article. —PaleoNeonate – 09:39, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

No. Fake news is news that is fake, not news about things that are fakes.Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Nor is Wikipedia the right venue to debate which cosmetic surgery is real. Simonm223 (talk) 18:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Kasie Hunt Spreads Fake News Biden’s Segregationist Pals Were ‘Republicans’

Joe Biden specifically named the segregationist Senators: James Eastland of Mississippi and Herman Talmadge of Georgia, and both were "proud, card-carrying members of the Democrat Party". https://www.teaparty.org/kasie-hunt-spreads-fake-news-bidens-segregationist-pals-were-republicans-368762/ Our mission is to bring awareness to any issue which challenges the security, sovereignty or domestic tranquility of our beloved nation, The United States of America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.158.216.180 (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Please see the message I posted at User talk:72.88.120.129 who recently inserted similar material but based on another source. I'll let other editors comment in this source. —PaleoNeonate – 22:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Kasie Hunt Spreads Fake News Biden’s Segregationist Pals Were ‘Republicans’. Actually, the only problem is that they were both Democrats. https://usbreakingnews.net/2019/06/20/kasie-hunt-spreads-fake-news-bidens-segregationist-pals-were-republicans/ 72.88.120.129 (talk) 14:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Not an RS as far as I can see.Slatersteven (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Neither "TeaParty.org" nor "usbreakingnews.net" are reliable secondary sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:09, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably WP:UNDUE for this article. starship.paint (talk) 07:28, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump and Putin discuss Fake News at G-20

In June 2019, while attending the G-20 summit in OSAKA, Japan, President Trump and Vladimir Putin briefly discussed Fake News. President Trump offered disdain for the assembled media, during a meeting, in which, shortly after Putin celebrated the rise of the populist right in Europe and the United States and declared that traditional Western-style liberalism “has become obsolete.” Trump stated, “Fake news is a great term, isn’t it? You don’t have this problem in Russia, but we do.” However Putin insisted in English, "We also have, It’s the same."

When Mr. Trump was then asked by a news reporter if he would tell Russia not to meddle in American elections, Trump responded, “Yes, of course I will.” Mr. Trump then turned to Mr. Putin and said, "Don’t meddle in the election, President." Mr. Trump then pointed at another Russian official and repeated, “Don’t meddle in the election.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/trump-putin-election.html 174.150.200.144 (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Putin's comments about the populist right did not occur at the summit. At your source: "In an interview published just hours before the meeting, Mr. Putin celebrated the rise of the populist right in Europe and the United States and declared that traditional Western-style liberalism 'has become obsolete.'" Trump responded by criticizing the historically liberal political leaders of American west-coast cities, such as San Francisco and Los Angeles, apparently not understanding that "Western-style liberalism" has nothing to do with California or the American West. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/06/29/trump-just-proved-he-doesnt-even-know-meaning-america/ (I don't know whether to laugh or cry.) General Ization ^Talk 21:35, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes!!! after Putin stated In an interview published just hours before the meeting. good add!! "apparently not understanding" is your opinion and not fact. btw, this wiki article is about Fake News, not some misinterpreted misunderstanding about "Western-Style" anything... 174.150.200.144 (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Actually, "apparently not understanding" is very clearly sourced at the citation I provided, but it is an opinion piece, not news reporting. The part about not knowing whether to laugh or cry is clearly my opinion (and was expressed in my voice). My main point was to correct your implication that Putin's statements about the populist right and the obsolescence of Western-style liberalism (which you, not I, brought up here even though they are not strictly about "fake news") were made at the summit; they were not. General Ization ^Talk 22:45, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

How about - In an interview published just hours before the meeting, Mr. Putin had also celebrated the rise of the populist right in Europe and the United States. 174.150.200.144 (talk) 22:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

No, since that is verbatim what appears at your source. Use your own words, please. General Ization ^Talk 22:56, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I feel a need to provide context to the world leaders brief discussion regarding Fake News. Thus referencing the Putin declaration.. Some edits were made to re-represent the published article, switching around the facts into a wiki article. help edit it, if you want..

(not knowing whether to laugh or cry). huh??! confusion all around us.. hope you find your way..... 174.150.200.144 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

In June 2019, while attending the G-20 summit in OSAKA, Japan, President Trump and Vladimir Putin briefly discussed Fake News. President Trump offered disdain for the assembled media, during a meeting between the two nation leaders. This occurred shortly after Putin had celebrated the rise of the populist right in Europe and the United States and that, in his opinion, traditional "Western-style" liberalism had "become obsolete.” Trump stated, “Fake news is a great term, isn’t it? You don’t have this problem in Russia, but we do.” However Putin insisted in English, "We also have, It’s the same." When Mr. Trump was then asked by a news reporter if he would tell Russia not to meddle in American elections, Trump responded, “Yes, of course I will.” Mr. Trump then turned to Mr. Putin and said, "Don’t meddle in the election, President." Mr. Trump then pointed at another Russian official and repeated, “Don’t meddle in the election.” https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/trump-putin-election.html174.150.200.144 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NOTNEWS. If they had been discussing dessert options you wouldn't be adding that to Baked apple or Blancmange. Drmies (talk) 23:28, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Valid contributions to the Fake News wiki article involving world leaders from a wiki RS... Why not??? WP:NOTNEWS opposition seems like opposition opinion editing and suppression of valid factual content. So... 174.150.200.144 (talk) 01:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I concur with Drmies that none of this has the potential to contribute anything at all to readers' understanding of the topic of this article. At this point, the consensus, barring further reporting that makes it relevant, is not to add information about Trump's and Putin's exchange on the topic of fake news at the G-20 summit in Osaka. General Ization ^Talk 01:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

?The consensus? c'mon man what are you ??? consensus?? 174.150.200.144 (talk) 01:50, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Read the information at WP:CONSENSUS (which was linked above), please. General Ization ^Talk 01:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No confusion... here: [with no additional information}:

In June 2019, while attending the G-20 summit in OSAKA, Japan, President Trump and Vladimir Putin briefly discussed Fake News. President Trump offered disdain for the assembled media, during a meeting between the two nation leaders. Trump stated, “Fake news is a great term, isn’t it? You don’t have this problem in Russia, but we do.” However Putin insisted in English, "We also have, It’s the same." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/trump-putin-election.html174.150.200.144 (talk) 23:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC) 174.150.200.144 (talk) 02:04, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

really, -> "none of this has the potential to contribute anything at all to readers' understanding of the topic of this article".. really?? 174.150.200.144 (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

In June 2019, while attending the G-20 summit in OSAKA, Japan, President Trump and Vladimir Putin briefly discussed Fake News. President Trump offered disdain for the assembled media, during a meeting between the two nation leaders. Trump stated, “Fake news is a great term, isn’t it? You don’t have this problem in Russia, but we do.” However Putin insisted in English, "We also have, It’s the same." https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/28/us/politics/trump-putin-election.html174.150.200.144 174.150.200.144 (talk) 02:34, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

So no ? 'no response then? is it time to add to the wiki article then? I'm ready,,, 174.150.200.144 (talk) 03:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Your having recited the exact same text multiple times in this section isn't likely to change anyone's opinion; nor does it require a response other than the ones you received above. I have reverted your change to the article, since it is against the current consensus. General Ization ^Talk 03:40, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You have objected the same old fears here. why do you subvert reveal of the truth thru reliable RS? wiki needs to to be be a reveal not a conceal... 174.150.200.144 (talk) 03:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I did not "object the same old fears" (whatever that means); I explained Wikipedia policy. Not everything published, even in a reliable source, that mentions a particular topic needs to be published in a Wikipedia article about that topic. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. In this case, two editors with a total of 25 years of experience here and almost 400,000 edits between them feel that your addition does not add value to the article; a single IP who by all appearances has made fewer than 100 edits at a total of two articles, the first less than 24 hours ago, feels it does. Unless you are able to achieve consensus for your changes, I recommend that you do not make them again. General Ization ^Talk 03:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Yep, and so it goes.. recited the exact same text multiple times in this section. yep, you're right - "the same old fears"174.150.200.144 (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

We already have more then enough material about Donnies views, we do not need to have every statements he makes, thats what twitter is for,Slatersteven (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Is it not significant that due to the brief exchange, Fake News is revealed to be present in RUSSIA ? OMG, RUSSIA Call Mueller!!! Call Nadler, call the democrats, save the planet 174.150.200.144 (talk) 13:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

No, as we are not any of those things. Out job is to be a source of relevant and important information, not a conduit for every remark made by Putin or Donnie.Slatersteven (talk) 13:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

fine, I will add this content to conservapedia So Donald Trump will be accurately documented. 174.158.126.196 (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Fine, best place for it.Slatersteven (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

recent edit

Why is this [[3]] in the article, this seems a huge violation of Undue.Slatersteven (talk) 10:26, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Why is Donald Trump's definition of "fake news" not mentioned?

In 2016, Donald Trump condemned the news media as "the enemy of the American people". He began using the term "fake news" to accuse the media of being a dishonest industry, with little integrity, misrepresenting the truth in order to sell newspapers, stirring up scandal, sensation, and turning celebrities into figures of hatred (including himself) all to sell more newspapers.

In response to this damning indictment from the President, the media subsequently redefined "fake news" as a broad term meaning all online disinformation and hoaxes, such as that found on social media sites. This redefinition of the term "fake news" conveniently shifted the accusation away from the mainstream media, while making it impossible to google Mr Trump's original definition.

I find it troubling to see that this article does not even mention Mr Trump's original definition, but uses the media redefinition exclusively.

Since these two very different definitions, each meaning very different things, I recommend that a new article is created for Mr Trump's original definition of "fake news": the accusation of a corrupt media industry which actively lies in order to make money. As opposed to the definition given here, which simply means online disinformation and hoaxes.

In addition, this article totally misrepresents Mr Trump's definition by claiming it was his attempt to cast doubt on "legitimate news which he doesn't like". The lone reference given to back this up is false. In the author's personal opinion, Mr Trump "admited that fake news just means news he doesn't like". But the quote given said no such thing. Mr Trump did not define the term "fake news", he merely used it in passing. Grand Dizzy (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 October 2019

we need to add the discussion about the recent fake news in the related tab 206.211.34.22 (talk) 16:47, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Not sure what this is about, but looking at their recent activity I am not sure we should do anything.Slatersteven (talk) 17:16, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NiciVampireHeart 11:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Britain using fake news to influence USA in the 1940s

Dirty tricks and fake news were employed to discredit individual congressmen, like the prominent isolationist Hamilton Fish of New York. According to an official history, the goal was to "put the fear of God into every isolationist senator and congressman in the country." They funded his opponents; published pamphlets suggesting he was pro-Hitler; released a false photo of Fish with the head of the pro-Nazi German American Bund; and they planted stories saying he was getting financial aid from German agents. The British sustained the effort till he was finally beaten in 1944. ... The only GOP candidate with a pro-British agenda was one Wendell Willkie, from Indiana. He went into the convention as a decided underdog. Then a poll came out from a polling organization called Market Analysis, Inc. It said that 60 percent of delegates favored helping the UK. ... Decades after the war, it was revealed that Market Analysis, Inc., was a British creation.

etc.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-01-17/how-britain-tried-influence-us-election-1940

-> let us include it

Zezen (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I would rather have a couple of more sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Fake news definition

Is there any definition of fake news? CNN reports false information and lies which can be substantiated, does that make CNN a Fake News site? Clearly, the Onion is a fake news site, but it's done in jest, for purpose of humor. Sites like CNN do it with intent to mislead, with malice. They have admitted they are a mouthpiece for the government and 'lean left' as recorded Project Veritas video shows, from the top to the bottom. CNN has been outed as a fake news organization - so should it not be included? What about other government controlled media? Just by being owned and stating opinions of the government does that by itself make you fake news? What defines Fake News? Anyone can throw together a 'fact check' site and claim that any fact is a lie, such as snopes.com with no evidence. Does that make Snopes.com Fake News? or is that a "Fake Fact Check" site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireadia2020 (talk • contribs) 23:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your premise is clearly based on your personal opinions about CNN and other outlets. "Fake news" is already clearly defined in the lede of this article. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Unless you have suggestions for improving this article while also respecting our policies concerning neutral point of view, please do not post on this Talk page. General Ization ^Talk 00:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No, not my opinion. This is widely accepted, and documented here on wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CNN_controversies — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireadia2020 (talk • contribs)

No, it is not widely accepted. Of course there have been controversies in a news organization that has broadcast daily for 39 years. But, that does not a fake news site make, our opinions are not reliable sources, and Project Veritas has a long history of faking videos. O3000 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Here we go [[4]]. Of course this can include mistakes. But the implication is knowingly false.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

History section

Some of the content from the history section sound too out of context. While somewhat relevant, seem too have too much of an emphasis on how rumors that have occurred in history is heavily correlated to where "fake news" might be coming from. --23gobears (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Jojijoj (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)Evaluation

Lead evaluation

The Lead has a concise and clear introductory sentence and all the information included is present in the article. But the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections and it is overly detailed.

Content

The content of the article is definitly relevant to the topic and up-to-date since it was lase edited on 7 February 2020. Like I mentioned at the begining, there are content about the influences fake news has on our soceity, specific social groups, certain individuals, etc. How fake news changed or affected the way people perceived public inforrmation? How does films or tv shows portrayed fake news?

Tone and Balance

The overal tone of this article is pretty neutral, but there is a tag in the "Identifying" section saying that its "tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia."

Sources and References

The article did a great job on backing up all facts with reliable, thorough, and current secondary sources. All the links I checked are working.

Organization

Some sections for the article is a littlt bit too long to read (e.g. the Lead, 21st century). Also, the "By Country" section is too long and inconenvient to navigate, and I think that all the information of this section can be organized and separated into some different, more specific and clear sections, instead of countries.

Images and Media

The images in this article definitely enhance the readers' understanding of the topic and are laid out in a visually appealing way. But toward the end of the article, there is a picture of Donald Trump which I think is not captioned professionally.

Checking the talk page

Since this page was nominated for deletion, there were discussion arguing that this article should be kept. There are also discussions of the recent fake news, defintions, and history of fake news. This article is of interest to the WikiPoject Politics and WikiProject Journalism.

Overall evaluation

This article is in the high performanced C-class, which is an intermediate article with room for improvement. The strengths are that it already has a lot of comprehensive information and since this toic is becoming more and moire importand in our media industry, and more people are aware of it, I believe that there are a lot of new facts, stats or even definitions that I can find and add to it.