Talk:Fake news/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Possible POV content fork

CFCF, is it not true that you first tried to convince folks at Talk:Fake news website that that article should be re-written to reflect your view that fake news is a type of hoax, and after a consensus formed against that view you changed Fake news to redirect to Hoax, and after a consensus formed against that you created this article, which says that fake news is a type of hoax? How is this not a POV content fork? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I originally intended to write a new section under hoax, but with the number of sources available there seemed to be enough to build a new article with a subsection on hoax with the {{main}} template. At Talk:Fake news website concerns were raised that no distinction was made between fake news and fake news websites so it seems apt to have an article. This is the main topic of fake-news while that article on websites only covers a specific subset. This aritcle can and likely will be expanded significantly. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:38, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I would say there are two subjects: fake news, and a list of fake news websites. Only two. Guy (Help!) 20:57, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Carl, specifically in response to: "At Talk:Fake news website concerns were raised that no distinction was made between fake news and fake news websites so it seems apt to have an article." If there's really no distinction between two terms then there shouldn't be separate articles for each. If there's one thing then there should be one article. If you think Fake news website should be moved to Fake news, then the solution is to propose that move at Talk:Fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 01:09, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Please try to parse the sentence again — it's saying the opposite of what you aimed your response towards. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't follow. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:40, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

I believe he is saying that fake news website does not distinguish between the news and the website it appears on, wbich isn't really right in some cases. That said I have not followed the history of the discussion. Elinruby (talk) 08:04, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see, and sorry for misunderstanding. The problem is that while the concepts of fake news and the websites that host them are technically different, as a practical matter there aren't enough sources that make this distinction to have two separate articles. The sources and content for these two separate articles have nearly 100% overlap. Meanwhile, the two articles' content is diverging in key ways--most notably, that Fake news says that fake news is a type of hoax, whereas Fake news website does not. Consensus formed on one article's talk page isn't being followed on the other article. So while this might not be intentional POV forking, it essentially amounts to the same thing. In any case, I urge anyone reading this to participate in the merge discussion at Talk:Fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

That the sources sometimes conflate completely distinct things, or are ambiguous in their meanings (the term 'fake news' is a fuzzy ambiguous term!), does not mean wikipedians SHOULD conflate things in mainspace, too. WP:Accuracy is important, even if we should be careful not to take that too far. It is just flat out inaccurate, to say that 'fake news' is the same thing as 'fake news website' is the same thing as 'fake news story' is the same thing as 'covert propaganda from the communists' is the same thing as a lot of other stupid things the journalists have said at one point or another. The goal here is to summarize human knowledge methinks. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Fake vs Faux and concerning number of citations

I'm not sure if it would be relevant to this article, but I seem to recall a number of left-leaning news websites and social platforms using the term "faux news" to refer to either Fox news, or other news sources presented with a right-wing bias (Drudge, Glenn Beck, etc.) The article is clearly still in need of expansion and improvement, so I expect clarity of the term is also still being determined. Would the term "Faux news" be worth mentioning if it is seen a relevant?

Additionally, I noticed that even with the relative shortness of the article, there seemed to be a surprising number of citations. In the second paragraph, I counted approximately 15 citations. Is this level of detail necessarily, or would this fall under Bombardment? I wouldn't be surprised if there is a lengthy history of the phrase Fake News, but I question whether the modern meaning vs. a historical one would have the same implications.

• Example: John Smith claimed in 1900 that "Example newspaper is Fake News.", but the reason why John said this was because Example Newspaper lacked: fame, credibility and had regularly been rebuked by other news organizations previously for similar articles. John had no working knowledge of whether or not Example Newspaper was somehow influenced by to outside factors or relied on a lack of critical thinking by its readers, John only made the claim because Example Newspaper was well-known for its lack of credentials and controversial tone.

The modern day implication of Fake News seems to imply more then a simple lack of professionalism in it's editorial staff; the article as it is currently written seems to imply that the term is used to identify news organizations that are knowingly spreading spurious or entirely fabricated "news" in order to gain money through ad revenue, fame through readership, or both. This appears to have a much darker tone, and implies that it is not a simple lack of professionalism or attention to detail, and more of an overwhelming desire for greed before knowledge mindset. This seems to run counter to the entire concept of what news is. It means that if likes for lies can make more money then the truth, then the journalists at these places cease to bejournalists entirely, and instead become writers. Sawta (talk) 15:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Faux News: This article is definitively about deliberately fabricated news, not about biased news reporting, and I think the Fox/"faux" News thing would only serve to confuse readers in that regard. I do think it would be appropriate to add "faux news" to Fake news (disambiguation). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Bombardment: Bombardment is a conduct problem, not a content problem, and is generally in response to notability concerns. I don't think anyone has has disputed the notability of fake news. Obviously it has received heavy news coverage. I think the problem you're concerned about is citation overkill, which is a stylistic concern. If you wish to prune some of the redundant sources then I have no problem with that. Just make sure that all content remains reliably sourced. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:58, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Video shows CNN handing signs to Muslims in order to stage a fake protest against terrorism

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/06/shock-video-cnn-creates-fakenews-london-following-terror-attacks-stages-anti-isis-muslim-protesters/

https://medium.com/@Cernovich/cnn-becky-anderson-staging-fake-news-scene-london-terror-march-2e6bdc3aa68c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ObbTX_nMGk

71.182.238.248 (talk) 05:07, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Fake News

Wikipedia, here, only mentions pro Trump fake news. How about anti Trump fake news. I have read of many! Is Wikipedia also biased? So disappointing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:B8C5:7200:F0B6:1855:2AC2:E42F (talk) 18:06, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

NYT is fake news?

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

---

What individual(s) or group(s) are the authority on defining Fake News? I am mostly familiar with the term as used by the US President Donald Trump in press conferences and in his tweets to describe the CNN and the NYT. Trump argues that these news organizations routinely printed headlines predicting losing campaign and election results for him in the primary and general that were completely falsified on Nov 9th. See https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/825328817833123840 Additionally, soon after the CNN reported on the unverifiable Buzzfeed report Trump characterized CNN as Fake News in a press conference.

Provided enough sources can be found that support President's Trump use of the term, can this definition be included in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.222.169.103 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Please review our verifiability policy. Content must be be supported by reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

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

Peer Review Link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:21sall/sandbox — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew2397 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

False fake news?

Should there be a section on real news being falsely labeled as fake news? This seems to be a development.BigJim707 (talk) 13:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

You mean random people calling real news fake news? No. People say a lot of dumb things about the media these days. There's no point in trying to chronicle them all. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I saw one story, in a major newspaper, saying that Trump supporters were calling mainstream news sources "fake news" to Muddy the waters.BigJim707 (talk) 15:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

No, he's talking about the linguistic phenomena that the very *terminology* which goes by the name 'fake news' is rapidly evolving, almost to the point of being a meaningless euphemism. See the green box, which you apparently missed last time we discussed this.[1] See also the discussion of faux news immediately above, which was liberal-activist shorthand for conservative media bias. The modern term 'fake news' is quickly getting turned into a conservative-activist shorthand for liberal media bias and also for lying press. See rewrite which makes these distinctions clear, instead of muddying it all together. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

George Lakoff references the idea of "Fake fake news" here: [2] Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Just to clarify something for any LA LA LAndians here, fake news was popularized as a reference to what you guys are referring to MAINSTREAM MEDIA. These outlets have been purchased by major corporations since the 80s and have been slanting news with corporate propaganda ever since. Clinton and the DNC were caught red-handed writing articles for major media outlets as a condition of her interviews. Bernie Sanders rose to 50% of the DNC vote from a virtually unknown status using a crowdfunded, no Super-Pac campaign, but faced an unprecedented ratio of votes to media-mentions. This is because the DNC instructed the media not to mention him after scientifically investigating the close link between media mentions and campaign success (A correlation again shown true with Trump). They would never have mentioned large scale (in terms of dollars and life-hours lost) issues like immigration, trade deals, high frequency trading if outsider candidates like Bernie and Trump did not. "Mainstream Media" IS THE FAKE NEWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.226.85.188 (talk) 08:47, 26 August 2017 (UTC)

References

Here are two sources reporting on a count of nested false/wrong representations of real news as fake news: [3] [4] 08:26, 23 December 2017 (UTC)15:37, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the Dutch have a new FM. Wakari07 (talk) 13:25, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

history of fake news

Pointer to a discussion at the DAB page, which may be of interest to folks at this page: Talk:Fake_news_(disambiguation)#History_of_fake_news. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Whoops—sorry for inserting comments into a closed discussion. I thought that was still open to conversation. My mistake! Scapulus • contribs) 06:47, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to expand the history section. Russia's use of fake news has been written about much more than is indicated here currently, including in some academic spaces.Scapulus (talk) 05:07, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

I'd like to make an addition to the history of fake news. I've been digging into research about who coined the term "fake news" and when it start to popularize.Etanyag (talk) 22:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Etanyag

The section about Marc Antony is inaccurate. Octavian received Antony's will from the Vestal Temple, it was not a fake document https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Final_War_of_the_Roman_Republic. It is true that Octavian produced a lot of false claims of Antony but the claims of " portraying him as a drunkard and a womanizer" are corroborated by many authors including contemporary sources (true many were Antony's enemies like Cicero). However, this statement "arc Antony ultimately killed himself after his defeat in the Battle of Actium upon hearing false rumors propagated by Cleopatra herself claiming that she had committed suicide.[29]" is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.110.194.114 (talk) 22:06, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Maybe this is fake news from 1688?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C6YnUooWMAAg_-C.jpg:large

-89.244.77.228 (talk) 09:38, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Fake news servers - Macedonia

According to several news reports, the servers (if not the perpetrators) of the majority of "fake news" sources reside in Macedonia . . . some worthy editors should note this and update the article. Google search will provide at least three RS's. 104.169.17.29 (talk) 02:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

This information can already be found in Fake news website. There is a pending call for comments about whether these two articles should be merged. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Merged pargraphs

This section refers to this edit. Please read it before reverting any changes - and please discuss your reversal here if you do so. This edition removes no content from the article, it only merges repetitive paragraphs.

A paragraph of the "Controversy" section was almost a verbatim copy from a paragraph of the "History" section. Some sentences are actually copied verbatim, the references being repeated. Controversy:

The origin of fake news is disputed. Some accounts claim[weasel words] it is part of a coordinated Russian propaganda effort aimed at the West.[13] Alternet reported that Donald Trump himself had been the source of some of the related misinformation.[39] Hillary Clinton was a frequent target of fake news during her 2016 presidential candidacy, and it has been claimed[by whom?] that her loss may partly be blamed on fake news.[14] Following Donald Trump's election it has been suggested[by whom?] that Angela Merkel has become the new primary target of fake news in the run-up to the 2017 German federal election.[40] While the Facebook newsfeed has been heavily implicated in the spread of fake news, and the resulting effects of fake news – Facebook itself initially denied this characterization.[41][17] In the aftermath of the American election and the run-up to the German election Facebook has begun labeling and warning of inaccurate news.[42][43][44] Facebook has partnered with independent fact-checkers: Snopes, FactCheck.org, Politifact, ABC News, AP, and Correctiv to vet news for accuracy, warning readers and potential sharers.[45][20]

History:

The origin of contemporary fake news is disputed, with accounts claiming it is part of a coordinated Russian propaganda effort aimed at the West.[13] Hillary Clinton was a prime target of fake news during her 2016 presidential candidacy, and it has been claimed that her loss was partly to be blamed on fake news.[14] Following Donald Trump's election it has been suggested that Angela Merkel has become the new primary target of fake news in the run-up to the 2017 German federal election.[15] The Facebook newsfeed has been heavily implicated in the spread of fake news,[16][17] and in the aftermath of the American election and the run-up to the German election — Facebook has partnered with independent fact-checkers to label inaccurate news, warning readers before sharing it.[18][19][20] The impact of fake news is global and part of a worldwide phenomenon.[21]

Besides the "Trump" mention and the additional info on Facebook from the "Controversy" paragraph, it is a verbatim copy of the "History" paragraph (the former also explicitly mentions the fact checking partners whereas the latter only references them, which for all intents and purposes is the same thing when comparing their similarity). The "Impact" section also contains a repetition of the "History" one (and by consequence of the "Controversy" paragraph also!):

Hillary Clinton was a prime target of fake news during her 2016 presidential candidacy, and it has been claimed that her loss was partly to be blamed on fake news.[14] However, a study by researchers at Stanford University and New York University concluded that fake news had "little to no effect on the outcome of the election", noting that only 8-percent of voters read a fake news story and that recall of the stories was low.[34][35][not in citation given] The study concluded that "for fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake news article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads".[36][37]

Except for the mention of the Stanford study. It is clear that the three paragraphs are abundantly repetitive, thus I merged all three into one, retaining the unique information from each one (the mention to Trump, the additional info about Facebook, the mention to the Stanford study, and the "weasel", "who" and "not in citation" tags).

Since the "Controversy" section was left with just one short paragraph after the much needed merge of the aforementioned paragraphs, I removed it, adding the remaining short paragraph to the "History" section (it also follows a chronological order from the other paragraphs so it's a perfect fit). Please feel free to improve on this merge.Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Article Organization

There seem to be a lot of existential descriptions of fake news in the history section, and the description in the top stub appears to be somewhat limiting. This sentence for example: "Profit is made in a similar fashion to clickbait and relies on ad-revenue generated regardless of the veracity of the published stories." This describes one way some fake news creators have profited from fake news, but certainly fake news isn't restricted to the type that brings online ad revenues. In the history section, we have fake news being related to yellow journalism, propaganda, satire, and phishing scams. Each of these is a form of fake news that has been seen since the term's existence, and in my research, "fake news" tended to be an umbrella term that included each of these. So I do think it's appropriate to include them in this article. Nonetheless, the definitional descriptions probably belong in the stub at the top, whereas the historical account of these different forms belongs in the history section. Scapulus (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

About this sentence: "The origin of contemporary fake news is disputed, with accounts claiming[weasel words] it is part of a coordinated Russian propaganda effort aimed at the West.[21]" The linked Financial Times article requires a subscription (which I, and presumably many other readers, don't have). And I'm curious whether the article itself discusses the "disputed" origin of fake news. Also, what does "The origin of contemporary fake news" refer to? Is that a reference to the original creation of the topic (because it clearly goes back more than a century)? It seems to be a reference to the place where fake news articles are created, and I believe it's axiomatic to say that not all fake news originates in the same place. Regardless, the sentence isn't clear and needs to be cleaned up. Scapulus (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Why is there a definition section when a definition is given in the stub at the top? Scapulus (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Usage of the term

There has been an excessive amount of edits removing and adding back the following sentence from the article:

CNN was called out by President Trump as, "Fake News", before and after the election along with MSNBC, NBC, and several news providers.

I added a rephrase that perhaps both the adders and removers might find acceptable. Sentences in italic were already present somewhere the article.

In the twenty-first century, the use and impact of fake news became widespread, as well as the usage of the term. Besides being used to designate made up stories designed to deceive readers to maximize traffic and profit, the term was also used to refer to satirical news, whose purpose is not to create fake news but rather to highlight and inform people about real news using exaggeration and other comedic techniques, and as an accusation of bias or mislead against mainstream media sources.

The first two uses are already mentioned in the article. The later usage I believe satisfies WP:DUE, as it has been widely done, enough to be picked up by mainstream sources such as The New York Times, and the usage by the POTUS (picked up by Politico) also adds some weight to it. One can argue it's an incorrect usage of the term, but nevertheless a widespread one which should be mentioned in my opinion.

Please discuss any further additions and removals here. Saturnalia0 (talk) 12:43, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I like your edit here. That seems appropriate. Scapulus (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

It's interesting that we're not the only ones struggling with the definition. From NPR: http://www.npr.org/2017/02/17/515630467/with-fake-news-trump-moves-from-alternative-facts-to-alternative-language Scapulus (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Section deleted with no further explanation than "take to TP"

Looks pretty arbitrary to me. Here's what he deleted:

• The controversy over fake news has been described as both a moral panic and mass hysteria from commentators on both sides of the political aisle, including Glenn Greenwald, Ed Morrissey,and Jack Shafer.

Unless anyone can substantiate an objection, I shall be re-posting. XavierItzm (talk) 18:59, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

References

Comment on content, not on the contributor. It is irrelevant who reverted you if you have a good explanation based on policy for your addition (which you must have for an addition that is contested). If there is no clear consensus, then start an RfC if you must. Saturnalia0 (talk) 19:57, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

♥ Consider it done! XavierItzm (talk) 08:28, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

This sentence and its references are already present in the "Impact" section, which seems like the correct place for it. It doesn't need to be repeated in the "Definition" section, as it's not doing anything to define what fake news is. --McGeddon (talk) 20:48, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

♥ Fair point that it is a duplicate. Nonetheless, disagree that the sentence has anything to do with "impact". If a thing being defined is a "moral panic", this is what it is, not the impact of the thing. After all, as the "history" section of the article makes clear, fake news have always been around.XavierItzm (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

• The reason I wrote take it to talk is because it had been discussed with the original proposer, to whom I had pointed out a number of issues. Which political aisle are we talking about? Fake news is not a US-only problem, and many countries don't separate into two political groups either. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Who is saying anything about the US? Have you read the refs? The very first one is from the UK (!). Last I heard, the UK was not a state of the U.S. If there are no further objections, I shall be re-posting. XavierItzm (talk) 08:44, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Once again it will be removed then — because then you have two different political aisles, making the text not only violate WP:GLOBAL — but actually factually incorrect. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:06, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, what source is British? The Guardian is British owned, but that paper is from its American news-team. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 10:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Let the record note user CFCF thinks The Guardian is not a British source. With there not being any additional valid objections, the text will be re-posted.

In my rendition, I was sure to edit 'both sides of the political aisle' into 'all sides of the political spectrum', to de-emphasise the American-centric view that the article took.

With that said, I think it should be included in the lede, because it a popular viewpoint (given the numerous sources from both the left and right, from both journalist and commentator I included) that summarises and makes a rebuttal of 'Fake News' in a fashion that may also be considered the locus of what it means in the first place (i.e, Many articles have rebuttals in their ledes, i.e, final paragraph of RT News' has a rebuttal of the channel in general, so I don't see why 'Fake News' shouldn't either, especially when the term is heavily criticised and very controversial)

• Addendum--I'm not sure why the wording 'both sides of the political aisle' are so controversial in the first place, seeing as practically every nation on the planet has both a right and left-wing faction, with few exceptions (i.e, North Korea), and even 3rd parties fall within the paradigm of polarisation (i.e, UKIP is a centre-right party, Lib Dems are a centre-left party, despite both being minority parties) so I don't see how it violates WP:GLOBAL at all. Stevo D (talk) 09:46, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Your comment is a perfect example of why it is controversial — because it risks luring people into the false belief that there are two political aisles. In parliamentary democracies (most democracies apart from UK, US, Au) there is no aisle, but rather a continuum, and single issue parties are not all too rare either. Such parties are notoriously difficult to place on a continuum, and there is in fact quite little difference between center-left, center-right and "center-center". Either specify which political aisle we are talking about (the sources mention the US, which makes the section not global and should not belong in the lede) — or give some more examples showing backers with different ideologies who discard the idea of fake news.

What the section also misses is how thinkers and commentators along both American party lines have called out fake news as a major problem. It seems disingenuous to only include remarks disregarding the phenomenon in the lede — when there is a wealth of remarks that call it a major issue of our time. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 11:33, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This is silly. Saying 'all sides of the political spectrum' isn't American bias. Stevo D (talk) 21:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Saying that, then only citing American sources is. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Most native English speakers are American, so most disseminated information in English will be from America. You're literally arguing that sources that are America are too biased to cover the world objectively, which is false. Stevo D (talk) 07:34, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

No, and no. If you go read the sources that are linked there, they discuss the American situation. Per WP:WORLDVIEW that is absolutely relevant in an article, but it does not belong in the lede. Especially without proper indication that this is an analysis of the American situation. You're also ignoring the comment above that quite a few sources exist which do suggest Fake News is a major issue, and not at all a moral outrage Also, most English speakers are not native, so I don't get where you are going with your point... Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 07:40, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

"Involvement of social media" and "Response" sections

I see my edits deleting these sections have been reverted. These sections are clearly 100% about fake news websites and, whilst I understand there is significant overlap between that article and this one, unless those sections go on to mention offline incidents, this info is much better suited to that article than here. HelgaStick (talk) 00:07, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

While you have a point that they could be trimmed down, removing 1/4 of an article is seldom a good idea. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:18, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sidebars, graphics crunch

Hi. We have a Misinformation sidebar and a Journalism sidebar. I see no way to include the infographic File:How_to_Spot_Fake_News.pdf in the second section without contorting everything. Anyone here have any ideas? Thanks in advance. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The infographic could replace Mark Antony's picture. But really, in the history, we are already omitting pictures of Marie Antoinette and Galileo and Ben Franklin. -SusanLesch (talk) 00:39, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I removed the Journalism sidebar for now. -SusanLesch (talk) 01:47, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Luckily this made sense. We had a whole template Journalism at the bottom of the article. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Definition

http://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/news/fake-news-propaganda-and-influence-operations-%E2%80%93-guide-journalism-new-and-more-chaotic-media "A definition: Fake News is news items that are invented or distorted intentionally" Victor Grigas (talk) 04:32, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this definition sounds a little negative towards the nature of fake news and needs some slight revision to have a more neutral tone.Etanyag (talk) 15:38, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What do you think about adding this into the definition? According to The Telegraph (2017), a typically right-center bias, fake news could be always coming from the government, to achieve certain of political purpose in the public. The article explained that the government could be one of the major funding parties behind the scenes. Edelino (talk) 16:13, 7 April 2017 (UTC)edelino

I agree with this editEtanyag (talk) 16:38, 10 April 2017 (UTC)Etanyag

North Korea

I have removed this:

The state media of North Korea practiced fake information campaigns throughout much of the twentieth century under the dictatorships of Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-Il, a tradition which has been upheld by their successor Kim Jong-un into the twenty-first century. Official North Korean news outlets have falsely claimed that state scientists have discovered a single undisclosed panacea for Aids, Ebola and cancer. Other North Korean news stories have included the falsehoods that Kim Jong-Il invented the hamburger, had supernatural powers which permitted him never to defecate, and that a double rainbow and a new star appeared on the event of his birth atop a mountain.

Firstly, it's not a "single undisclosed panacea"; it's Kumdang-2, which is a herbal remedy supposed to help a range of ailments, like most herbal remedies. Rather than being "undisclosed", it's on the international market. The story that Kim Jong Il didn't defecate comes from Aquariums of Pyongyang and is a child's perception, not official news. The hamburger story probably comes from this Telegraph article, which doesn't actually include the claim that he invented it. However, the rainbow etc is probably a real North Korean claim. A lot of the stories about North Korean propaganda have proved to be fake news themselves, like Kim Jong Il's golf score and the discovery of unicorns: see Media coverage of North Korea. I think we should avoid endorsing fake news about fake news.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Thank you, @Jack Upland: for the corrections. However, The Associated Press is a reliable source that credits Kim Jong Il for the hamburger. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't read Korean but this paper from India says that Minju Joson was a source. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

The Associated Press says that KJI "introduced" the hamburger, not invented it. The Indian source has much in common with the Associated Press article and the London Telegraph article cited above — references to "double bread with meat" and students and teachers — but it adds the invention claim, which is clearly an embellishment on an otherwise fairly mundane story. The Indian source also repeats a lot of fake news stories: the unicorn, the golf score, the toilet, the panacea. The story about Japan stealing time is a distortion of the real story that NK changed its time zone back to what it was before the Japanese occupation. I don't think this is a reliable source. I can't find the original NK story, but I have found the following (in English translation): [5][6][7][8]. These clearly indicate that they don't see the hamburger as a North Korean invention. In fact, the mere use of the word "hamburger" shows this. And this interview on Voice of America with a biographer of KJI makes it clear that the claim was that KJI introduced it, not invented it.--Jack Upland (talk) 00:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Jack Upland seems to be on the money — but it may be worth mentioning NK is some capacity in this article, even if only to comment on the fake fake news. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:24, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, again thank you to Jack Upland. My reading wasn't critical enough. The VoA interview very helpfully straightened out the story. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:26, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Jack Upland for removing that and disproving it. Many people think they are well informed about North Korea but their heads are full of fake news about North Korea, paradoxically. We need a subsection for South Korea, because most fake news about North Korea are fabricated by South Korean agencies. emijrp (talk) 14:34, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

"International Fact-Checking Network"

How relevant is this institution? The only references to it in the article are from a "Poynter" website and the text almost seems like it's promoting it. Saturnalia0 (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree the text is a bit off. The Poynter Institute is all right though. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:00, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I am going to delete this entry because this section is extremely short and is a distraction to the flow of the page and to what Fake News is. The international Fact-Checking Network may be source a that is credible when it comes to checking facts, but unless more information is contributed there should not be an entire section that only contains one sentence.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonvadavis (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC) 

Iraqi information minister

What about Comical Ali? Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:37, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I think this section should be removed because it's extremely short and does not contribute to the rest of the wikipedia page. Brandonvadavis (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2017 (UTC)brandonvadavis

More work needed

@Journoz:, thank you for citing the paragraph that was marked uncited. Unfortunately this needs more work. We only need one or at most two good sources for each statement. Also the citations you added are all appearing red in the References list, something about a conflict between the URL and a wikilink. Thank you if you can please fix this. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:03, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Saturnalia0 fixed it. Thank you again for providing the sources, Journoz. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:10, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

@SusanLesch:, Thanks. Just saw your message now, late, as am new to wiki. Pleasure providing sources. Thanks to Saturnalia0 too. -Journoz

Addressing 'overcite' tags

I'm addressing two out of the four 'overcite' tags. First:

Many governmental bodies in USA and Europe started looking at contingencies and regulations to combat Fake News specially when as part of a coordinated intelligence campaign by hostile foreign governments.[58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][excessive citations]

The second reference ([9]) doesn't support any of the claims at all and should be removed independently of WP:CITEKILL. The third reference ([10]) doesn't support the claim about foreign governments, it merely says Germany is "leading the fight against fake news". Fourth link [11] again, no support for the claim about foreign governments. Both claims are already covered by The Independent ([12]) and The Telegraph ([13]), and maybe Financial Times ([14]) - I can't access it because of a paywall - and maybe also New Yorker ([15]; too long, no time to read, if anyone can check those, thanks). The next two references ([16], [17]) are sources of lesser relevance (namely "Law Enforcement Today" and "Zero Hedge"), I'm removing per WP:CITEKILL. There are still four citations, which may be too much, so I'm leaving the tag.

The second bit I'm addressing is:

Many online tech giants like Facebook, Microsoft and Google also started putting in place means to combat Fake News in 2016 as a result of the phenomena becoming globally known, specially as a result of its use in the 2016 US Presidential and Capitol Hill Elections.[67][68][69][70][71][72][73][excessive citations]

Even though I can't access the first link ([18]) because of a paywall, there is another ([19]) Financial Times ref, so I'm leaving only the second (judging by the title it seems to be a better fit for the sentence it supports, if anyone can check, thanks). There is already the aforementioned FT links, a BBC ([20]) and a NYT ([21]) link, so I'm removing the less relevant Huffington Post link ([22]) per WP:CITEKILL. There is still a WSJ link ([23]) with the same story as BBC. Since the WSJ has a time-based paywall and the story is already nicely covered with good references, I'm removing it per WP:CITEKILL. There are still four citations, which might be too much, so I'm leaving the tag.

If other editors think the issue has been sufficiently addressed, please remove the tags.Saturnalia0 (talk) 01:16, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Thank you, Saturnalia0. I removed the Financial Times (because of the paywall) and a few others that seemed related only by tangent. All the overcite flags are gone now. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Impartiality

I'm very concerned with the apparent bias of the article. The page was generally informative, but seemed to hold an inherent bias about the subject. I strongly urge close review of the claims made and the citations used, for example the section in which the claim is made that Google AdSense "basically funds fake news". This screams a lack of impartiality and I am disappointed with the obvious lack of quality in this article, especially one so important for being informed in an age of misinformation. --Ydoc5212 (talk) 22:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Kindly specify exactly to what you object? The only thing you mention is about Google AdSense, a statement the article correctly attributes to Craig Silverman of BuzzFeed. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:58, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

How about this section for one (below), which blatantly tries to take a stab at the US president. Of course, his accusers will say he's lying. He called out CBS too. So why is only CNN listed here? Why is it immediately trying to discredit him after using him to try and prove a point? It's a little frustrating coming to Wiki to read about fake news, only to learn that it's kind of fake as well. And the fact that you're using Buzzfeed (a known fake news organization) as a source should say enough, as far as pointing out biases.

"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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.225.203 (talk • contribs) 17:22, July 23, 2017 (UTC)

Internet Trolls

I think there should be a section or mention for internet trolls. They have had a large impact on fake news and hoaxes, a definition and example would be included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardojkay (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Internet trolls can be defined as a person who harasses, berates, and purposefully begins arguments with other users in places such as comment sections, forums, and various online community for the sake of pure amusement. Brandonvadavis (talk) 15:41, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Brandonvadavis

This does not have a neutral tone, not all internet trolls are bad — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardojkay (talk • contribs) 15:20, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

The internet trolls page can be used to refer to how fake news is being circulated. Etanyag (talk) 17:15, 10 April 2017 (UTC)etanyag

Deleted In Mainstream Media

--Ricardojkay (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)"Fake news may actually be convincing fiction, such as the radio dramatisation of H.G. Wells' novel The War of the Worlds, broadcast in 1938; or it may be one of the variety of possible hoaxes." I deleted this sentence from the article because as such an iconic event I wanted to post it somewhere else. I want to move this concept to "In Mainstream Media" because every hoax on this wikipedia page is more politically focused; there are so many great hoaxes like this one that demonstrate the switch form paper to radio. I want to switch the "In Mainstream Media" content to be about this War of the Worlds hoax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricardojkay (talk • contribs) 15:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Language

--Ricardojkay (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Ricardojkay Excessive use of academic language, very hard to understand this article all though it is on an interesting topic.

MERGE PAGES!!

--Ricardojkay (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2017 (UTC)Ricardojkay There should be no separate page for Fake News by Country, doing it by country is a listing method. Also, focusing on American politics when there is a list of various other countries with sufficient examples of fake news is .. interesting. If this idea is too big of a change there should at least be a section added to this page for "North Korea." North Korea isn't on the list of fake news by country either; very suspicious.

There was information on North Korea, but I removed it as it was itself fake news (see above). In the case of North Korea, what we have is state-run propaganda, which is somewhat different from the phenomenon of "fake news".--Jack Upland (talk) 21:10, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

--Ricardojkay (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2017 (UTC)ricardojkay I'm sure I can find examples of fake news in Korea that are not government propaganda, also there was no inclusion of SOUTH Korea.

Well, if you think there is something missing from the article you are free to add it in, so long as you comply with Wikipedia's holy policies. I suspect rather than a pro-North Korean conspiracy, the issue here is that editors have been too bone lazy to do the necessary research. Sad.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

When Fake News Creates Deadly News

Fakes news articles have stirred up trouble by coming off as credible news. In a twitter post between Israel and Pakistan nuclear war was almost started.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/24/world/asia/pakistan-israel-khawaja-asif-fake-news-nuclear.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandonvadavis (talk • contribs) 17:21, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Voice of America video

Hello. You guys, this is too much. @CFCF: and @Volunteer Marek: where would you like to put this clip? It is free, it is smart, and it clearly shows an error made by the NYT (cited in the caption). CFCF " (→‎In social media: Doesn't belong here, maybe in a section about DTs confused usage of the term, but no here)" and Volunteer Marek "(→‎Twenty-first century: w/o proper context this image is pov)". -SusanLesch (talk) 14:26, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The Trump clip? Without context it doesn't belong in here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:09, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

The clip is on-topic, it is notable, and we are lucky to have it. And, @Volunteer Marek:, your edit summary (you write "if this clip goes in, the caption needs to explain how the term "fake news" was appropriated by Trump and the far right to describe any source they disagree with") asks for what the article prose says: "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." A caption can't be an essay. The article prose provides the necessary context. -SusanLesch (talk) 20:02, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Susan. I presume it belongs unless stronger arguments against it are presented. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 20:20, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

A lot of people will just look at the picture, and the misleading caption, and not read the text. So either we include it with an appropriate caption or we don't include it. In particular, if we cant think of a concise way to caption it that actually reflects inline text, then we shouldn't include it. Right now it's just misleading.Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:52, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

The caption is a factual statement and is not misleading in the slightest. If people can't read then they shouldn't use Wikipedia. Of course the caption can be rewritten. What you are asking for, however, verges on original research. CBS News 60 Minutes is an impeccable source that works in your idea of context. I will restore the clip now using CBS definitions. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:27, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Does that look better? -SusanLesch (talk) 22:47, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

No. The caption, while might make perfect sense grammatically, has no place in this article. The page is concerning fake news, while the video itself and the story behind it do contribute to the concept being built, the caption sounds more like an argument. Who cares what he said or how he feels about it, what is relevant to the page is what they edited him to say.--Ricardojkay (talk) 17:15, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, @Ricardojkay: sorry I was on the road. Thank you for stating that this video is pertinent to the topic of fake news. We have three experienced Wikipedia editors objecting to the caption for their own reasons. Editing experience would be better used to BUILD UP a caption agreeable to all than it is in TEARING DOWN a caption to which one objects. Again thank you for using the talk page to resolve this issue. Here are three captions that we have used in the article (I seem to recall we have had more than three). @CFCF: and @Volunteer Marek: and @Ricardojkay:, please contribute a caption to this article instead of stripping out bits you don't like. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:08, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

160 Minutes producers said President Trump uses the phrase "fake news" to mean something else: "I take offense with what you said."

2Donald Trump explains his tweet that "fake news media ... is the enemy of the American people" at CPAC in 2017.

3Donald Trump mentioning 'fake news' at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2017. Video from Voice of America

4Donald Trump explains his tweet that the fake news media is the enemy of the American people at the Conservative Political Action Conference in 2017. Video from Voice of America

References

Working paper on impact on elections

Concerning this paragraph... I see no reason for removal. It's a working paper, but our article mentions that. Secondary sources are used for it - the Washington Post and Stanford's news website. Other media outlets picked it up as well (e.g. The Economist and MSN). Most of this article is just opinions by journalists on newspapers, the articles themselves are used as references. How are they good enough for inclusion and this isn't? If anything it's the other way around. If even this shouldn't be included, this article should undergo a severe cleanup. Volunteer Marek, I mentioned there was discussion in the talk page but I was mistaken, we had discussed it in edit summaries. Here are the relevant ones: [24] [25] - you seemed to be content with the version you now removed. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Since it's a working paper, it means it's not peer reviewed. And frankly working papers can be any ol' junk and most of them never see publication. Now I guess this is a little different because it was mentioned in wapo - but that's still not sufficient to meet due weight. It would have to be a widely discussed and influential working paper for it to be included. Volunteer Marek (talk) 02:54, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

This paper seems to have been published in the National Bureau of Economic Research, it has been cited by The Economist, The Washington Post, among others. Besides the original inclusion and my re-inclusion it has been re-included by two other editors (Calbaer and Jan2202La, respectively at [26] [27]), and is also used as a reference for the very definition of fake news in this article. First paragraph of the Definition section: ... fake news websites have no basis in fact, but are presented as being factually accurate.[6], where [6] is the paper in question. Is there still an objection to the inclusion, Volunteer Marek? If not, would this and this texts be satisfactory? If there is opposition no longer I'll re-add the segments in question, otherwise I intend to request the comment of other editors. Saturnalia0 (talk) 05:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

NBER publishes non-peer reviewed working papers.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

This (diff) is fine, it's published in a peer reviewed journal.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:29, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

And actually comparing the original working paper with the published JEP version is a pretty good illustration of why we shouldn't use working papers. Most of the claims that people wanted cited ("fake news had no effect" kind of things) got walked back once it went through peer review so that now the authors state "We do not provide an assessment of this claim (what was the actual impact) one way or another" Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:33, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well the data is the same on both the working paper and the published one, only the statement was re-written. I propose the following text which merges [28] and [29], removing the statement removed from the working paper, replacing "many" with the actual numbers from the article, and expanding on the motivation and conclusions for the study. Please review and see if it's satisfactory - and I welcome any improvements. Saturnalia0 (talk) 06:25, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed addition

Debate over the impact of fake news in the election, and whether or not it significantly impacted the election of the republican candidate Donald Trump, whom the most shared fake stories favored, led researchers from Stanford to study the impact of fake news shared on social media, where 62% of U.S. adults get their news from. They assessed that 8% of readers of fake news recalled and believed in the content they were reading, though the same share of readers also recalled and believed in "placebos" - stories they did not actually read, but that were produced by the authors of the study. In comparison, over 50% of the participants recalled reading and believed in true news stories. The authors do not assess the final impact of these numbers on the election, but seek to "offer theoretical and empirical background" for the debate.

10 days have passed since the proposal. Since there was no opposition I added it to the article - following the usual cycle, if there is opposition please revert and discuss it here. Saturnalia0 (talk) 03:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Alternative Fact and Fake News

The alternative fact should always be associated with fake news.

Understanding to the Alternative fact: This term is describing different facts as seen by people and their opinions. Also, it could be describing the term “You opinion vs My truth” ("Your Opinion Vs. My Truth", 2017). The alternative fact might be the story involving both facts and personal opinions, which could sometimes make the story become totally opposite towards the matter it might not be the truth of the fact anymore. According to Maxwell Tani(2017), Alternative facts are not facts — they are falsehoods.” In some cases, the speaker would use a certain part of the fact story, plus its own opinions, to make up a new story or explanation toward the original fact. Nevertheless, Seipel (2017) has shown the counter argument of the term alternative facts by Kellyanne Conway; Top White House advisor, "Two plus two is four. Three plus one is four. Partly cloudy, partly sunny. Glass half full, glass half empty. Those are alternative facts”. I do not agree with the explanation of alternative facts by Kellyanne Conway. Mainly, she states "Two plus two is four and three plus one is four” to point the different way to acquire the same answer. However, in the realistic world, things are not that simple. For the same news, the different way of reporting it, which could be leading to different side effects, is the attitudes of people viewing this matter or issue. It could also not be leading to the same result at the end through different ways of approaching the matter. Since the alternative fact is based on the truth, and the personal opinions, it could be linked to the similar concept of fake news. In some cases, the fake news could be based on certain of fact or truth, and personal opinion then resulted to different story/ conclusions.

Edelino (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2017 (UTC)Edelino

References

Hoaxes eg Aprils Fools day

One category of fake news that appears to be missing from the article is hoaxes purely for amusement, such as April Fools Day. They meet the definition of fake news in that they are "stories that are provably false, have enormous traction [popular appeal] in the culture, and are consumed by millions of people." But they are not satire or parody. They are not intended to do harm (indeed, it backfires on the originator if they inadvertently do). What appears to distinguish them from the "evil" forms of fake news is that they are intended to be revealed as fake (often by their originators) so that people will realise they have been fooled (the joke is on you). Hoaxes go viral both by those who believe them as well as those who have realised they are a hoax (but who want to be part of the fun by seeing who else is fooled). "Evil" fake news goes viral, both by those who genuinely believe it and feel others should know but also by those who don't believe it but believe that they somehow benefit if others do believe it (e.g. sway voting intentions). The difference seems to be in the absence of malice and the expectation (or at least lack of concern) about the story being revealed as fake. Kerry (talk) 03:50, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes. The section Fake_news#Nineteenth_century describes the Great Moon Hoax in exactly those terms. The best source I found was a guest post on FiveThirtyEight:

"Such stories were entertainment. They “were not meant to deceive” but to give readers who weren’t used to having newspapers cater to them “a way to bond, to discuss, to have arguments with each other — to feel smart" --Andie Tucher, Columbia Journalism School

I am interested in other people's opinions on this. But I think now that shaving out a separate section would confuse this article more than it would help it. I also think the article Hoax handles this quite well (it has a summary of fake news and points to this article). If you are interested in exploring this more, the talk page of the template for the Misinformation menu lists half a dozen Wikiprojects that might provide second opinions. -SusanLesch (talk) 13:36, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Enriching the global section: Taiwan

According to the news updated paper from the Time World in regards the global threat to free speech, the Taiwanese government has reformed its policy on education and it will include “media literacy" as one part of school curriculum for the students. It will be included to develop the critical thinking skills needed while using social media. Further, the work of media literacy will also include the skills needed to analyze propaganda and sources, so the student can clarify what is fake news. Edelino (talk) 23:22, 16 April 2017 (UTC)Edelino

References

User:Edelino, thank you! This is just wonderful. I added two sentences to Fake_news#Identifying. You might want to add it to the Taiwan section as well. -SusanLesch (talk) 14:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

SusanLesch Thank you for your support, I have already added it to the article. Edelino (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2017 (UTC)Edelino

Fake news and ways to spot it

One way to spot fake news is to look at the article source and where it is coming from. The second way to spot fake news is to check to see if the author is creditable.

Alexandra petersen (talk)

And if an article is based on Wikipedia...?--Jack Upland (talk) 12:57, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Fake news. 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/20170212092119/http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goebbels/peopleevents/e_propaganda.html to http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/goebbels/peopleevents/e_propaganda.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) 10:16, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Sweden

Here´s a source that can be used for the swedish section, which I see has no sources. [30] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:57, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I think that you elaborate more any summarizing or paraphrasing this article so that you can help expand the section on Sweden because it is only a short paragraph Brandonvadavis (talk) 17:24, 26 April 2017 (UTC)brandonvadavis

Fake News- Australia

In regard to the issue of fake news concerning the 2016 United States elections, the Australian Parliament has now initiated investigations into “fake news” in Australia. The inquiry looks at a few major areas, including establishing the audiences most prone to fake news, examining the impact of fake news on classic journalism, evaluating the liability of online advertisers, and regulating the spreading of hoaxes. The move by the Australian Parliament to combat the threat posed by social media in spreading fakes news is based on the potential negative impact on the political scene and the public at large.

 Edelino (talk) 05:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)Edelino

The Australian Parliament initiated investigation into “fake news” regarding issues surrounding fake news that occurred during the recent United States election. The inquiry would be looking at a few major areas in Australia to find audiences most vulnerable to fake news. It would then consider the impact on classic journalism, and evaluate the liability of online advertisers and regulate the spreading the hoaxes. This act of parliament, is meant to combat the threat of social media power on spreading fakes news as concluded negative results to the public.Etanyag (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2017 (UTC)etanyag

So it's a problem for the Aussies as well as the Yankees?--Jack Upland (talk) 03:37, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Fake News - China

The issue of fake news in the 2016 Untied States election has given the Chinese Government a reason to further prohibit Western democracy and press freedom in the country. The Chinese government has also accused Western media organizations of bias and involvement in dishonest reporting on President Trump. In this light, the government has expanded internet regulation and prohibited Western Media organizations from entering China. The issue of fake news in China is associated with the power of internet and social media. According to the Chinese government, there is a practice where people who present themselves as journalists spread fake information about organizations, politicians, and celebrities until they are paid by the affected parties to stop the action. These people use online social media to spread fake news in order to achieve their goals. According to David Bandurski, University of Hong Kong’s China Media Projector, this problem is growing and worsening by the day. Edelino (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Edelino

I have already clean up the grammar, here is the new versions:

The issue of fake news in the 2016 Untied States election has given the Chinese Government a reason to further prohibit Western democracy and press freedom in the country. The Chinese government has also accused Western media organisations of bias and involvement in dishonest reporting on President Trump. In this light, the government has expanded internet regulation by prohibiting Western news from appearing on Chinese internet sites. Edelino (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Edelino

Another internal issue of fake news in China is associated with the power of internet and social media. According to the Chinese government, there is a practice where people who present themselves as Chinese journalists spread fake information about Chinese organisations, politicians, and celebrities until they are paid by the affected parties to stop the action. These people use online social media to spread fake news in order to achieve their goals. According to David Bandurski, University of Hong Kong’s China Media Projector, this problem is growing and worsening. Edelino (talk) 17:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Edelino

Hi @Edelino: - I had to fix the text about the election influencing the Chinese govt to decry fake news to more closely match the source you provided. There was no information in the NY Times article you provided matching expanding Internet regulation. Hope this helps. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 08:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Proposed merge to Propaganda

as far as I can tell from my searches and so on, this term really only has come up in the Trump campaign. This article was created on 19 April 2017. We have a well-established article on propaganda and we sould merge the content into that, to me it seems it is very much a WP:NEOLOGISM invented during the United States Presidential Camapign, 2016 (used mostly by Donald Trump) and is not yet as a term WP:NOTABLE. It is usually mostly in {{scare quotes}} outside of some US sources. Si Trew (talk) 02:29, 25 April 2017 (UTC). Thanks for the graph, but the more telling statistiscics were who searched for this before those 90 days? It has only existed on WP since 19 April. That would generally mean WP:NEOLOGISM but no doubt there is reliable source to this, but it is perhaps WP:TOONEW. As an article, it should concentrate on its use in the Trump Campaign. Nobody else thought of it before that. I can't find (beyond obvious erroneous links) anyone else using it before that. Si Trew (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

It is a neologism, but that's OK, because the term is widespread. Fake news is a special kind of propaganda (a sort of black propaganda), where false information is presented as news with the aim of promoting a particular political line and is disseminated via social media. This article should concentrate on this, on not stray into earlier and other manifestations of propaganda.--Jack Upland (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I do not think this would be a necessary merge. Propaganda is "information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view". Fake news is not politically centered, the actual page for Fake News is filled with political examples but there are other instances of fake news that are not political.--Ricardojkay (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

We could add the propaganda page to the "see also"?--Etanyag (talk) 16:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Etanyag

| It is great to link the Propaganda with Fakes news, since this two are similar matter. Edelino (talk) 17:22, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Edelino

Agree, please link propaganda here. Just by the way, @SimonTrew:, look at the illustration that opens the article. Dated 1894, it clearly says "Fake News." -SusanLesch (talk) 22:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This article had to be expanded to include propaganda in general and users had to extrapolate this neologism to make it look like something beyond the blatant WP:RECENTISM it is. No one can even seem to agree on what the term means. Oh and look at the initial versions - it was just election stuff and fearmongering popularized by scared "mainstream media" editors. So I can see why such a proposal would come up and I'm sympathetic, though of course it'll never happen. Saturnalia0 (talk) 23:06, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

I definitely oppose any kind of merge between these articles. For starters they are about completely unrelated topics: propaganda is the spread of false information, usually by state actors, to further a political cause; fake news is generally published to make money through clickbait headlines (read fake news website). Also, the combined view count of fake news and fake news website is more than double that for propaganda. WP:NEOLOGISM states that we should not have articles on neologisms with little to no usage in reliable sources, which is certainly not the case here. Laurdecl ^talk 23:17, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Fake News: Singapore

Concerning the fake news problems in Singapore, the government is attempting to offer limited remedies within the current legal framework. The Law Minister, K. Shanmugam, has suggested to the parliament a possible remediation to fake news, which involves reforming the current Telecommunications Act. Under this reform, transmitting false message will be considered an offense. Edelino (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Edelino

Concerning fake news in Singapore, the government is attempting to offer limited remedies within the current legal framework. In early 2017, the Law Minister, Kasiviswanathan. Shanmugam has suggested to the parliament a possible remediation to fake news, which involves reforming the current Telecommunications Act. Under this reform, transmitting false message will be considered offences. Edelino (talk) 14:39, 26 April 2017 (UTC)Edelino

Removed content (Stanford/NYU paper)

The following content was removed in early April after being present for two months:

However, a study by researchers at Stanford University and New York University concluded that fake news had "little to no effect on the outcome of the election", noting that only 8-percent of voters read a fake news story and that recall of the stories was low.The study concluded that "for fake news to have changed the outcome of the election, a single fake news article would need to have had the same persuasive effect as 36 television campaign ads".

When I tried readding a shorted citation of the study, it was reverted again, as have other attempts at readdition. It's the only academic study I've heard of on the subject of fake news, and it counters the (unproven but persistent) narrative that fake news might have swung the 2016 U.S. election. This was promoted by Stanford's official website and several newa sources, which establishes notability and reliable sources, though I suppose we need to be careful about the wording, since they're promoting a study that wasn't peer reviewed. I'd like to get to wording that would satisfy WP:RS. (E.g., "A Stanford/NYU working paper concluded that fake news had 'little to no effect on the outcome of the election,' as reported by Stanford and several news outlets.") Attempts to scrub the page of this context are deceptive by omission, so I'd appreciate being able to readd a properly stated version of this without being instantly reverted by those who'd rather keep it out. Calbaer (talk) 14:55, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Calbaer. As I've explained in the edit summary there is already a section in this talk page discussing the inclusion of this material. Although I also favor the inclusion (and your arguments) I reverted you because the addition was contested, and was likely to be reverted anyway if you didn't respond in the talk page first. Moreover there are better sources for this content mentioned in that section: Please take a look at the "Working paper on impact on elections" section of this talk page, and if you think it's appropriate, paste your objections there. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:17, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

References

STOP DELETING THIS IN THE SECTION ABOUT THE FAKE NEWS WRITER PAUL HORNER

How many more sources do you need? lol

Horner also convinced the Internet that a mascot for a Christian organization named Fappy The Anti-Masturbation Dolphin was part of a documentary being put out by Michael Moore, where Moore would explore Fappy's work in educating elementary school children around the country about the dangers and consequences of masturbation along with his five arrests for public masturbation. Horner's fictitious character, Fappy, has over 55,000 followers on Facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8800:4002:600:247F:EC4C:FF9A:68CB (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

References

Please take a look at WP:OVERCITE, more references don't necessarily make a subject more relevant. I reverted (once) the addition of this material because it did not seem relevant to the article - perhaps to an article about Horner it would be. I have no strong objections to the inclusion, it just seems to me that it adds irrelevant content to an already bloated article. I invite other editors to weight in on the matter. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:19, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, this is just WP:SPAM and really serves no purpose in the article. We could fill the article with any number of unremarkable examples, but there is nothing to indicate that this is anything more than mildly interesting WP:TRIVIA. Carl Fredrik ^talk 18:34, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree. The article is about the phenomenon of fake news. This is not an enduring example of fake news. General Ization ^Talk 19:15, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

CNN Logo at Top

Someone is abusing this page by including the CNN logo at the very top of the page. I deleted it, but then the person re-inserted the photo.

Stephenleft (talk) 01:57, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Just keep reverting it until the user is blocked; reversion of vandalism is exempt from 3RR. If this vandalism continues, then file a report at WP:RPP to have the page blocked (don't think it reached that level yet, though). SkyWarrior 02:07, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Moving paragraph from Russia to France

Concerning this paragraph:

In April, 2017, Russia was accused of leaking presidential candidate Immanuel Macron's private emails and other documents on a file sharing website. The leak was said to have contained both real and fake documents, in an attempt to sway the upcoming presidential election. The documents were said to include various professional and private emails, as well as memos, contracts and accounting documents.[175][176] Director of research with IS-based cyber intelligence firm flashpoint, Vitali Kremez, said his analysis indicated that APT 28, a group tied to Russia’s GRU military intelligence directorate, was behind the leak.[177]

The sources say that the leak was of real documents but fake ones had been mixed on social media (not by the Russian actors who allegedly leaked the documents), thus in this revision (typo fixes here and here) I moved it to the "France" section, added citations to indicate that the sources say what I'm saying they say, and rewrote a sentence to clarify that the fake documents were mixed later on. I also added info from the sources about who accused Russia of leaking the documents. Saturnalia0 (talk) 14:13, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Different types

This section seems entirely redundant, all the information is contained and cited in the definition section.Shrurobe (talk) 20:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Allegations of bias

Epipelagic, please explain to me how my recent edits consisted of "original research" and "POV deletions." Among the edits that you reverted was one that removed a certain number of sources for content in order to fix an "excessive citations" tag. How in the world is this bad? I also removed a clear redundancy that said essentially the same thing for the second time in a section and got rid of another paragraph which mentioned a news report but didn't say why it was fake news or how it was relevant. Display name 99 (talk) 20:05, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I also deleted a part about there being more red than blue. The article also failed to explain why it was fake news. Like I said, it wasn't fake news. Get a map of election results in the country. There's more red than blue. Finally, in an ever more ridiculous example, you reverted my changing of "Michael T. Flynn" to "Michael Flynn," which is the title of his actual biography. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

You may have one or two legitimate edits amongst your general mess of original research and POV deletions, but it is unreasonable to expect other editors to laboriously trawl through the mess attempting a rescue mission for you. You need to do that work yourself. If you are clear which of your edits are legitimate, then don't bury them in other edits which you must have some sense are problematic. Do I really have to explain what original research is? Please read WP:OR. A good example is where you replaced "President Donald Trump has used the term "Fake news" in order to discredit news that he dislikes." with your uncited claim that "President Donald Trump has frequently used the term "Fake news", in order to discredit news sources that he argues overemphasize certain facts or distort the truth". Exactly where did President Trump lapse into coherence and produce an argument like that? Or did you just make the argument up for him? And do you really not understand why your deletions of other cited material can be seen as POV, and why they need consensus on the talk page here? I'm not going to get in an edit war with you, but I see you have now escalated these issues, and significantly reshaped the article in what appears to be a mission to deflect attention from Donald Trump. --Epipelagic (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Trump uses the term "fake news" to describe publications which he believes distort the facts. The argument that he uses it to describe stuff that he generally "dislikes" is a criticism advanced by the left, which believes that most of the things that he describes as "fake news" aren't really fake. But it's not for Wikipedia to take a position on that one way or the other. Trump argues that certain media portrayals distort actual events. Him saying that is fact. The argument that he uses it to describe simply unfavorable news sources is a partisan criticism that Wikipedia should not endorse.

Your description of Trump as possibly having "lapse[d] into coherence" provides further evidence to an obvious truth. As others have noted above, the primary editors of this article have a clear agenda. In obvious violation of Wikipedia policy, they advance what they claim are pro-Trump fake news stories, ignore to the best of their ability anti-Trump ones, and are willing to insert into the article all sorts of clear endorsements of liberal positions.

You did not mention in your response the red/blue business. I'd like to hear about that. For the time being, I am restoring my edits regarding the citations and Michael Flynn. Display name 99 (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Historically, fake news has been an issue of the left as much as of the right, as George Orwell clearly established over 80 years ago. That is not an issue. Currently fake news figures prominently in the promotion of Trump. You seem to be trying to downplay this and deflect from the issue by claiming the things Trump describes as "fake news" are mostly fake. Well the voice Wikipedia should be adopting is the voice of the reliable sources. Where are the reliable souces backing your position? Or do you think we should accept what you say just because you said it? --Epipelagic (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I've cited reliable sources with my recent edits. And what is my "position?" I'm simply telling you that describing Trump's definition of fake news as news that he simply "dislikes" is a partisan position that Wikipedia should not adopt. That shouldn't be too difficult to figure out. If you scroll to the bottom of this link, who will see Trump criticizing the New York Times in a tweet over alleged dishonesty. Trump describes as "fake news" media outlets that he claims falsify information. That's a fact, and we should give readers the facts. That's my position.

Also, you still have not addressed the red/blue issue. Display name 99 (talk) 23:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Well if you read my last reply you will see that I definitively addressed the "red/blue issue" in the first sentence. You seem to be further confused about what false news is. For example, in one of your additions you characterise as "false news" a claim by The Washington Post that Rosenstein had threatened to resign. The sequence of events is:

• On 10 May, The Washington Post reported along with other sources that Rosenstein had threatened to resign.[31]
• On 11 May it was reported elsewhere that Rosenstein said he didn't threaten to resign.[32]
• On 12 May The Washington Post reported that Rosenstein said he didn't threaten to resign.[33]

Now how is that false news? That is simply normal transparent reporting which includes some give and take around a disputed issues. You are inappropriately deleting entries which are false news and replacing them with entries that are not false news. Anyway, this needs input from other editors, and that's it from me for now.--Epipelagic (talk) 00:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I seem to have misread some of the information on red/blue states. I apologize and will not pursue that any further. But let me just say, for you or anybody else who sees this, that the Washington Post reporting that Rosenstein threatening to resign with no real evidence (always citing anonymous sources-no way to verify anything) shows an urge to jump on an issue and spread minsinformation and distrust of the Trump administration no matter what the facts. I'm also confident that more people read that than read the part on how he said that he didn't threaten to resign.

But that's it for me now too. Display name 99 (talk) 00:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Protocols of Zion

One of history’s famous exercises in Fake News was "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” (commonly abbreviated to Protocols of Zion), a fabricated anti-Semitic document purporting to describe a Jewish plan for global domination, published Russia 1903, translated and thence widely disseminated, whence it was accepted by many people of influence. Refer the Wikipedia article, reporting it was not till 1921 it was revealed as fraudulent.Gothegreeks (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

fake fact checking

We're surprisingly behind the times in one of the most important things for Wikipedia. We need a list of fake fact-checking websites. These devious websites are growing rapidly in influence and number and are also a direct attempt to undermine Wikipedia and its goals. People often try to find out if a fact-checking site is reliable and Wikipedia is one of the first places they look, but they are almost always disappointed. In fact, we don't even list all the reliable fact-checking sites, not even https://mediabiasfactcheck.com! --Espoo (talk) 15:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Good points. We need lists of both, or at least wikilinks to any lists of both. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it is not the answer to "who checks the fact checkers?", though Jimbo was working on a fact checking wiki IIRC. Find reliable sources talking about it, establish notability, and then add it to the article. There's no intrinsic need to add this to an already convoluted article on a neologism born of a media frenzy. Saturnalia0 (talk) 17:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

"Fake news" is not a neologism. It is Trump's unique use which is the neologism. There is "real" fake news, and then there is Trump's version, which has nothing to do with the truth or falsity of the matter, but whether it makes him look good or bad. He'll call a bold lie which makes him look good the truth, but an abundantly clearly true fact "fake" if it makes him look bad. -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:23, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

[34] Saturnalia0 (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Origin of the Term

One could argue fake news goes back centuries, but when was this term first used, as it's relatively new? When did it become a common term? The article should address this. 73.194.85.220 (talk) 21:46, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Good point, but I think the article specifically addresses the modern use of the term, which seems to have started in 2016. Earlier references to "false news" might be used here, or the entire article could be reworked to cover the older term. There are references to "false news" that one can find on www.Newspapers.com, but then we get into WP:Original research. We really have to wait for some WP:Reliable source to go back farther in time before we can write about those earlier uses. Sincerely, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:59, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

I didn't follow my own advice, and I searched for "fake news" at newspapers.com, and the earliest I found was 1895. https://www.newspapers.com/image/135239425/?terms=fake%2Bnews. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 18:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Removal of paragraph

A paragraph was recently deleted from the "In mainstream media" section, discussing an inaccurate Fox News story from six days before the election that was later retracted claiming that Hillary Clinton would likely be indicted in relation to the email scandal. The explanation given for the deletion was: "This section sems irrelevant to this section, as this section does not outline every individual fake news story to be retracted (of which there are many)." I have restored the paragraph in question on account of the fact that I think its removal should probably be discussed first. I am not strictly opposed to the removal, but I thought that some further explanation might be necessary. I have the followings objections to the removal of the paragraph:

1. The peculiar incident described in the paragraph seems to be noteworthy and relevant to the topic. While it is true that news agencies retract stories all the time, this particular instance seems to stand out as notable for several reasons. Firstly, the timing of story was six days before the election. Secondly, the story was repeated a day later, with intensified vehemence. Thirdly, the story had no clear basis in verifiable fact and would at least ostensibly appear to have been purely motivated by pandering to political bias.

2. The paragraph's inclusion could also be justified on the grounds of providing balance. The accusation of "fake news" is usually levelled against agencies such as CNN, The New York Times, and The Washington Post. Giving an example of how Fox News sometimes airs inaccurate stories would be in the interest of keeping the article *ahem* "fair and balanced." --Katolophyromai (talk) 05:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the reason provided by the remover. Moreover fake news is about stories purposely false, not about stories without proper sourcing (specially if they were retracted). Should we add Buzzfeed's Donald Trump gold shower dossier in this article because it was based on nothing? Should we call it "fake news" in its article? Should we add the hundreds of stories retracted by CNN, the New York Times, etc? You say that such accusations "are usually levied" against them, but where? Not in this article, not in this encyclopedia. So you're not making anything "fair and balanced" by adding that. It's off-topic and cherrypicked (I think you kind of admitted that in the end). Moreover Fox News already provides a good picture of their reporting. Saturnalia0 (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

As I have stated, I am not necessarily opposed to the removal, I just think that it should be discussed first. As long as my two objections above are adequately addressed, I will go along with the removal without further complaint. I think you have sufficiently addressed my second objection, but you have not really addressed my first one. You give the example of the BuzzFeed dossier, but I have no objections to that story being mentioned here, as long as the context is made clear. As for the other "hundreds of stories retracted by CNN, the New York Times, etc," that you mention, I would contend that the difference between those stories and this one is the fact that few of those stories are in any way notable; usually the retractions deal with minor details or journalistic procedures that are not followed. For instance, the recent story retracted by CNN that everyone made so big a fuss about never even made it on air and was only available on the CNN website. The story which is the subject of our discussion, on the other hand, was not only stated on air, but stated on air twice. Rather than being immediately retracted, the story was repeated the next day using intensified language. The timing of the statement is equally suspect in that it occurred six days before the election. I disagree with your statement that the paragraph is "off-topic and cherrypicked." In my view, this incident is a noteworthy example that deserves mention. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree that discussion is the best way to go, but I stand by my point that this is both off-topic and cherry picked. Off topic because the nature of fake news - intended to mislead - is different from that of inaccurate news and news based on flimsy grounds (and good luck trying to add that dossier in this article. I'll be damned if it doesn't face strong opposition from some editors). Cherry picked because well, how do you pick from numerous stories with issues like the ones from the Fox News story? Based on proximity from the election? That seems kind of arbitrary, as in cherry picked. I predict next thing will be someone pushing for a retracted story that Trump called fake news to be included accusing it of being a smear piece, notable because the president, etc. I think we should stay as close as possible to the definition of fake news that this article gives. About retractions being minor, some examples of the contrary. Saturnalia0 (talk) 21:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

You make a decent point. I still think that the incident is noteworthy enough for inclusion, but I am willing to go along with the removal now that you have provided a more detailed explanation of why you believe it should be removed. By the way, I was not saying that I wanted to add anything about the dossier; I was only saying that if someone else added mention of it, I would not fight to remove it, provided that the new addition was given the appropriate context. --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

FWIW I don't think it is possible to enumerate all instances of fake news. I also think that incident is noteworthy, but I am not personally certain it falls within the definition of fake news given in the lead. I also think the lead needs to be re-written to say something along the lines of "fake news is used in the current US political scene for differing purposes and is used to mean different things by different speakers. I will leave it to someone else to try to verbalise wgat it means coming from Donald Trump. I'm just pretty certain that it is not the same thing Hillary Clinton was talking about, and he definitely doesn't mean teenagers in Macedonia. Elinruby (talk) 08:42, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

United States Section

Hey, Volunteer. Well, here we are again with another content dispute lol. Hopefully this one doesn't get out of hand like the last one did. So, since you just restored unsourced POV material ("accurate" is your own opinion, of course, since there's no sourcing for the content), what do you suggest? Hidden Tempo (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

That works for now. I'm going to bed but tomorrow I'll take a look and find some RS to support the fact that Trump and many others have criticized traditionally liberal media outlets as "fake news." Hidden Tempo (talk) 05:41, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Geoffrey of Monmouth

@Jwslubbock: I wanted to say that I really appreciate the paragraph you added about Geoffrey of Monmouth's Historia Regum Britanniae, but it occurred to me that I do not think it really qualifies as "fake news" since Geoffrey was writing about events that had allegedly taken place centuries prior and a key component of the definition of fake news is that it must be about events that allegedly took place within the recent past at the time of its publication, hence the term fake news. I really like the paragraph, though, and I was thinking we might be able to find a better home for it. The article pseudohistory currently makes no mention of Geoffrey of Monmouth and I think that, if we added a section about the history of pseudohistory, your paragraph would fit in there just perfectly. What do you think? --Katolophyromai (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

@Katolophyromai: Hi, thanks for getting in touch. I see what you mean, but I still do feel that it qualifies. Perhaps I should have explained the intention of the book further. It was intended as Plantagenet propaganda to support (if I remember correctly) the legitimacy of Henry II and his claim to rule over all of the British Isles by inventing this exaggerated origin story. So while it was not talking about contemporary events, it had a contemporary political purpose. I think the main aspect of Fake News is that it is intended for contemporary propaganda purposes, rather than that it must be about contemporary events. I feel that if the Donation of Constantine is considered Fake News, then so should the History of the Kings of Britain, because both were historical documents used for contemporary political purposes. Maybe we can seek consensus to see if others agree? Jwslubbock (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

So the Historia was published around 1136, just after the death of Henry I and the succession by his nephew Stephen. The Plantagenet dynasty was a bit shaky and it led to a conflict between Stephen and his cousin Matilda which was called The Anarchy. The Plantagenet kingdom was still in its infancy and I'm pretty sure that when I studied this at university I remember it being discussed that Monmouth's work was intended to find favour with the regime by lending it historical legitimacy. I'll need to find a reference showing this though.Jwslubbock (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Your argument appears to be thoroughly sound. The fact that the Historia Regum Britanniae was used for contemporary political purposes seems to at least partially justify its inclusion here. I would be fine with leaving the paragraph here in the article. We could perhaps add a brief statement saying that it was used for contemporary political purposes. On the other hand, I do agree that input from other users would be helpful. --Katolophyromai (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think it is fake news because it was not about current affairs. It might be propaganda, but that doesn't mean it's necessarily fake news.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:57, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

That is the problem I have with it. On the other hand, as Jwslubbock has pointed out, if the "Donation of Constantine" can be considered fake news, the Historia Regum Britanniae can likely be considered fake news also. We could say that the "Donation of Constantine" is not really fake news either since it describes an event that supposedly took place around three centuries prior, but the article it is cited to explicitly categorizes it as "fake news": [35]. The problem here seems to be the fact that the term "fake news" is a neologism that has been frequently applied to completely different things. Prior to last year, it was normally applied to satirical shows that parody and make fun of serious news outlets. Then, last year it began to be applied to hoax news sites on the internet perpetrating outrageous lies. Then Trump and his followers applied the term to mainstream news agencies. The term is essentially an amorphous, ever-changing blob that can be applied to nearly anything. Perhaps we should establish a set of criteria to determine whether or not historic forgeries and hoaxes belong here or in a different article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't think that one source labelling something fake news is a good criteria. The term is in vogue and so it's being applied widely and loosely. I think it would be good to look at a few definitions of fake news and come up with a set of criteria that reflects the consensus of reliable sources.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Here are some rough criteria I think we can use to determine whether or not a specific example should be included in the "Historical examples" section:

1. The example in question must be contain false information placed there with the deliberate intention to deceive. In other words, the example must be a deliberate hoax or forgery. As the discussion above already concluded, a simple factual error does not qualify something as "fake news," provided that the error was made in good faith.
2. The example in question must be about events which purportedly took place within the recent past at the time when the example was made public. In other words, it must be news, not history. Examples failing this criteria but fulfilling all other criteria should be moved to the article pseudohistory.
3. The example in question must have been published in a form resembling one of the common methods of obtaining news information at the time. For most time periods, this means that the fabricated story must have been disseminated through a written news source, such as a newspaper, magazine, or pamphlet. For examples dating to before the invention of newspapers, this criteria could also include widely published writings of any kind, as long as those writings reached a widespread audience and resembled legitimate sources of news information.
4. The example in question must have attained a wide enough audience to meet Wikipedia's notability standards.

I think it is also important establish that the example in question does not necessarily need to have been politically motivated; although fake news is often political, political associations are not a part of its definition and there are plenty of instances of fake news stories that were not motivated by politics, such as the Great Moon Hoax of 1835.

We can make further amendments to these criteria if we need to. This is just a first draft. These criteria do not necessarily provide the official definition of fake news, but we can use them to guide our decisions on what information should be included in the "Historical examples" section and what information should be omitted. According to these criteria, the information about the Historia Regum Britanniae and the Donation of Constantine should be moved to the article pseudohistory. --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:08, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree with these criteria.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:20, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

ick

I really hated this term when Hillary Clinton was using it and now I am pretty sure Trump has rendered it meaningless, as he uses it for any journalism that displeases him. If we must have this artivle, I think the lede should be updated to reflect the way that Trump is using it, even though I was involved in working out the current wording. But it's the lede so what do people think? Meanwhile, it's changed a lot since I've been in here; I am copy-editing here and there for clarity, but not, I believe, changing any meanings. Elinruby (talk) 01:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I think the current lead is completely adequate. As far as I am concerned, Trump is just misusing the term. If we change the lead to match the definition of "fake news" that he is promoting, we will just end up creating more confusion and lending greater legitimacy to the notion that the mainstream media is somehow "fake." --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

good point and I really don't want to do that. There has been some recent reporting to the effect that Clinton misused it too however, just to throw that in the mix.I am not suggesting we adopt his definition, just point out its existence. Elinruby (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

What we could add is a mention that he does misuse the term. This is almost universally agreed upon by all legitimate sources. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:52, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Fake news as a term entered the vernacular with the 2016 presidential election, with fake news sources almost universally supporting Donald Trump. During and after the election Trump took to using the term instead to refer to any news that was critical of him.

That wording could be sourced very reliably. Carl Fredrik ^talk 07:55, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I am sure that wording would be strenously contested but I might support it if the sources were good. You have people actually saying that? Elinruby (talk) 08:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I am sure it would be easy to find sources saying such things, but I think that such a sentence would clearly violate WP:NPOV, since it seems to pretty much portray Trump's supporters as gullible idiots who blindly believe blatant lies. I do not think we should mention Trump or Clinton in the lead. Doing so would be hopelessly America-centric; fake news exists in other countries too. The concept, although not the exact phrase, has existed since ancient times and I know Britain apparently went through a similar cycle of "fake news" during the recent Brexit campaign. --Katolophyromai (talk) 11:51, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

We do need sources for that sentence. As far as Trump or Clinton in the lede - I think it'd be fine, even if fake news is a phenomenon in other countries, as long as the mention is succinct.Volunteer Marek (talk) 12:19, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Of course we need sources, but the fact that someone contests good sources does not make them or their statements non-neutral. If strong sources say one thing, and poor sources contest it, it's non-neutral to play to a WP:FALSEMIDDLE. I also absolutely think we should include Trump in the lede, as his use of the term is so prominent that it overshadows any accusations of America-centrism. Carl Fredrik ^talk 15:16, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If everyone else thinks Trump should be mentioned in the lead, I am willing to go along with their consensus, as long as the mention of Trump's usage of the term is brief and does not come until the end of the lead. I do not think that mentioning Trump in the first few sentences, or even the first few paragraphs, is a due course of action. If we do add mention of his usage of the term, it should be in the very last paragraph of the lead, where it currently talks about the impact of fake news websites on "post-truth politics." --Katolophyromai (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree it should go at the absolute end of the lede. Will look into proper sourcing/editing to make sure it is supported. Carl Fredrik ^talk 22:20, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Duranty etc.

I deleted "This years-long fake news episode has been noted by multiple pundits in Australia,[53] the U.S.,[54] and the UK.[55]" because that sentence was not backed up by the sources. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:34, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Yellow journalism

I removed a sentence linking fake news to Yellow journalism because the two sources cited did not make that claim. In fact, one of the sources stated, “The papers did not create anti-Spanish sentiments out of thin air, nor did the publishers fabricate the events to which the U.S. public and politicians reacted so strongly.” It is too easy for us Wikipedians to make comparisons to yellow journalism that simply don't match up, and then seek sources that SEEM to validate us. Yours, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 19:49, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Israel/Palestine

I added a small paragraph on Israel/Palestine because people have DIED in reaction to fake news in the Middle East. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:06, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Las Vegas shooting

This was a pretty big deal with Facebook and Google failing completely at preventing fake news. Doug Weller talk 08:05, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

WP:Reliable sources? Anybody can edit almost any article. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 21:59, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "can edit almost any article." But a simple search would have answered your question. Just a few of many:[36][37][38][39] [40] [41] [42][43][44] I think virtually every major news outlet at least in the US covered it, as did a number abroad. Doug Weller talk 10:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Ukraine

[45] - I think stofake.org can be actually used, but only with care and preferably also using more reliable sources. It was written as an advertisement of stopfake itself and assertive claims "in WP voice" on subjects that are actually highly controversial (some of these particular examples are not entirely fake). To disprove "fake news" one needs really good and multiple RS. My very best wishes (talk) 15:22, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 November 2017

Claim that most fake news websites favour Donald Trump is lacking a citation which would be helpful for such a claim as it is not clear where this knowledge arises from. should be added.

'United States' subjection, para. 4

Debate over the impact of fake news in the election, and whether or not it significantly impacted the election of the Republican candidate Donald Trump, whom the most shared fake stories favored , Abctaylor (talk) 20:19, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Not done: citation is at the end of the paragraph, inserting citation needed tags in the middle of sentences is not necessary. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:57, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Dartmouth research

A recent study from Dartmouth is receiving attention in secondary sources:

Selective Exposure to Misinformation: Evidence from the consumption of fake news during the 2016 U.S. presidential campaign

People who supported Trump were far more likely to visit fake news websites — especially those that are pro-Trump — than Clinton supporters. Among Trump supporters, 40% read at least one article from a pro-Trump fake news website ... compared with only 15% of Clinton supporters.... Consumption of articles from pro-Clinton fake news websites was much lower, though also somewhat divided by candidate support. Clinton supporters were modestly more likely to have visited pro-Clinton fake news websites ... versus Trump supporters .... The differences by candidate preference that we observe in fake news website visits are even more pronounced when expressed in terms of the composition of the overall news diets of each group. Articles on fake news websites represented an average of 6.2% of the pages visited on sites that focused on news topics among Trump supporters versus 0.8% among Clinton supporters.

One secondary source (NBC News) interviewed one of the authors, Brendan Nyhan, and they discussed the findings. Here's an interesting quote:

NBC:

"It feels like there’s a connection between having an active portion of a party that’s prone to seeking false stories and conspiracies and a president who has famously spread conspiracies and false claims. In many ways, demographically and ideologically, the president fits the profile of the fake news users that you’re describing."

Nyhan:

"It’s worrisome if fake news websites further weaken the norm against false and misleading information in our politics, which unfortunately has eroded. But it’s also important to put the content provided by fake news websites in perspective. People got vastly more misinformation from Donald Trump than they did from fake news websites -- full stop." (emphasis added)

BullRangifer (talk) 17:11, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

This would definitely be a worthy inclusion, especially that last quote above.--C.J. Griffin (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Pinging C.J. Griffin. See here. -- BullRangifer (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Please Change Title of Article

"fake news" sounds like a term a five year old would use. Please change to something more intellectual such as "fraudulent news" or "falsified reporting" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.172.42 (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Please see our WP:COMMONNAME policy. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:06, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What examples of Fake news on Russia Today?

What is an example of "Fake News" on Russia Today? It's on DirecTV channel 321 or Dish Network channel 280. What on there is Fake News? They cite sources often from U.S. media. CaribDigita (talk) 20:17, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Usage of the term "fake news" by editors

Across the site, I've recently seen a spate of edits and Talk entries where various visitors with access (I hesitate to call them editors) label information with which they merely disagree as "fake news."

I find this particularly bothersome when some topic is presently hot in the news cycle, information changes quickly, the complainer is clearly unwilling to do more than superficial research, and in the end is demonstrably WRONG. One side-effect is the changed/reverted content that must be put back in order to comply with finally demonstrable reality.

No matter where on some political spectrum the term appears, anyone who uses the term "fake news" in public ought to be required to explain — in detail AND in perpetuity — specifically what it is about which they are squawking. That term is generally a confrontational meme, employing assault with implied threat of battery in order to kill discussion of a topic the utterer finds uncomfortable. (Assault: "threat of imminent harmful or offensive contact with a person, or a threat to do so.") This behaviour is certainly inappropriate for anyone who claims to be a WP editor.
Weeb Dingle (talk) 13:31, 24 March 2018 (UTC)