Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Can someone add yournewswire.com?

Can someone add yournewswire.com to the list? Here are some sources.[1][2][3][4] A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:21, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done With the exception of the CNN source, which doesn't explicitly support the designation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:32, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of The Young Turks in this list

Their consistent use of poor information effectively mirrors Infowars but on the opposite end of the spectrum, should we add it as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.158.165.145 (talk) 07:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Can you please provide a reliable source expressly stating that The Young Turks is a fake news website? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 February 2017

The listing, Bloomberg.ma currently redirects to https://www.bloomberg.com/ which is the official Bloomberg website. As such it should probably be removed from the list. Kreeperkinsman (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Are you saying that when a site becomes defunct, it should be removed from the list? This is a list of both active and defunct fake news sites. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:29, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

That is not what Kreeperkinsman is saying at all. He is saying that when a domain no longer redirects to a fake news site, we should no longer call that domain a fake news site. If a domain used to point to a fake news site but now points to a non-fake news site, it is highly misleading to include that in the list without noting the change. However, Kreeperkinsman's claim appears to be incorrect. The domain does not in fact redirect to https://www.bloomberg.com, but to 64.125.30.59, which does respond to HTTP or HTTPS requests. Dr. Fleischman, given the sensitivity of this topic, it is especially important that you carefully respond to what people actually say, and not unreasonable things they have not said. Acone (talk) 20:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Yeah... That's why I asked what they were saying. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Request the Rmoval of Indecision Forever

The website is only a link to the comedy central.

The citation Andrew Couts, Here are all the 'fake news' sites to watch out for on Facebook, Daily Dot ( November 16, 2016). does not state anything that implies it should be included in the list. The website would be better described as satire than fake news. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.102.186.7 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done The Daily Dot source is not reliable, as has been previously discussed on this talk page. I've removed all sites that only used this source, including Indecision Forever. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Add ScienceVibe to the list of fake news websites

I request to add ScienceVibe to the list of fake news websites. While not everything on the website counts as fake news, there are several articles that are clearly bogus. Editors refuse (and delete) corrections made in comments. Examples are two recent Fukushima articles: http://sciencevibe.com/2017/01/16/the-entire-pacific-ocean-has-been-contaminated-by-fukushima-radiation-catastropheand-it-getting-worse/ http://sciencevibe.com/2016/11/25/scientists-blame-arctic-mega-crisis-on-epic-man-made-disaster/ It has been pointed out to them in the comments (by several people) that the claims made in the articles are physically and mathematically impossible. A 10 year old can do the googling and then the math to figure that out. The editors removed the comments and refused to change their articles. In addition to this they frequently run clickbait articles with titles like "The universe is a hologram" or "Tesla Invented 'The World’s First Anti-Gravity Machine' http://sciencevibe.com/2016/05/17/tesla-invented-the-worlds-first-flying-saucer-did-tesla-have-contact-with-aliens-video/ USSSkipjack (talk) 03:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done We need at least one reliable, independent source indicating that ScienceVibe is a fake news website before we can at it to the list. If you can find one, then please provide a link here and toggle "answered=no" in the {{edit semi-protected}} template. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:09, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Does elementary level math suffice to proof them wrong? I can post a complete rebuttal of their latest article just based on simple math (I actually posted it in their comments, we will see whether it lasts this time or gets deleted again).--USSSkipjack (talk) 06:38, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

No. According to Wikipedia's rules, elementary maths constitutes "original research". Maproom (talk) 08:50, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually basic arithmetic isn't considered original research, but that still doesn't get you there because the best it does is show that the story contains inaccuracies. It doesn't show that the story is fake. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:52, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017

Remove the "Has previously claimed that millions of people have voted illegally in the 2016 presidential election" part from Infowars, as this has been confirmed to be a true statement by the Washington Times

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/feb/15/nearly-2-million-non-citizen-hispanics-illegally-r/ Cameron653 (talk) 00:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Registering is not the same as voting. Grayfell (talk) 00:31, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Also, using a poll to "prove" millions of non-citizens registered to vote is a questionable method. It's possible the respondents were confused. ^Falling_Gravity 17:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

InfoWars

If InfoWars is to be included in this list based on false things they've reported, then CNN, Daily Mail, Daily Express etc certainly needs inclusion. All three aforementioned publications are much more egregious offenders than Infowars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordCazicThule (talk • contribs) 10:52, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The top paragraph states:

This list also excludes sites that promote conspiracy theories based on apparently genuine belief (as opposed to a conscious intent to misinform or to gather web traffic).

None of the cited sources states or suggests that InfoWars meets this definition. Several of those sources do use the term "fake news" to describe InfoWars, and certainly much of what Alex Jones and his reporters say is false. However, Alex Jones appears to be sincere about his beliefs, and none of the sources indicate otherwise.

To be clear, I am not trying to defend or legitimize Alex Jones or InfoWars, and I am not interested in high emotions that often run around this topic. I think that it is important to distinguish widely discredited sources, like UFO sites, from willful profit- or lulz-motivated deliberate disinformers.

If it is OK with others, I'd like to remove it from this list. If I've misunderstood the criteria for inclusion or misread the sources, please correct me.

Acone (talk) 22:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

There was a fairly recent Request for Comment on this very subject, and the result was that there was no consensus to remove InfoWars from the list. If you can obtain that consensus, then go for it, but honestly it doesn't seem likely. (I personally !voted to keep InfoWars on the list.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Fair enough, but it seems the dominant reason given by those in favor of keeping was that many other sources call it fake news. This is a fair perspective (though I do not personally find it convincing), but it is blatantly inconsistent with the definition of fake news given at Fake News and more importantly, inconsistent with the criteria for inclusion specified at the top of the page. If we are going to keep InfoWars, we should change the stated inclusion criterion to our actual inclusion criterion: whether it has been called fake news by more established news sources. More generally, perhaps the list should distinguish between sites widely agreed to be acting in bad faith (like the Macedonian ones in the nytimes article), and sites that habitually repeat that content, like Infowars or Breitbart.

If InfoWars inclusion here is settled community precedent, I would like to avoid re-litigating the matter. But I think that the list in its current form violates guidelines around WP:TRUTH and definitely does not reflect WP:NPOV. The fake news phenomenon is certainly noteworthy and encyclopedic, but lists of what sources are fake news with underspecified or inconsistently enforced criteria are pretty inappropriate for Wikipedia, and I think some cleanup is in order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acone (talk • contribs) 23:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't know about WP:TRUTH or WP:NPOV, but I agree with you on the substance. Many of the sources we're relying on to identify fake news sites don't mention this criterion, so I think we should remove it from the intro. I'll do that right now. We'll see if anyone objects. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

My most recent edit removes the statement about intent, and alludes to our actual inclusion criterion: do we have a source that says the site is fake news. Specifying the intent of fake news sites near a description of the list, as it did before I edited it, is not NPOV and gives a misleading impression about our criterion for inclusion. The material under "Definition" is still non-NPOV and could mislead the reader (not saying this is intentional) about why a given source is listed. Acone (talk) 00:43, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2017

The page states that "cnn.com" is a fake news website for the reasons "Along with it's broadcast network, CNN colluded with Hillary Clinton's 2016 campaign. Has also published various news stories which were lies, including the Trump "dossier"."

However, when looking at the citation, the link given is an article by the NPR (National Public Radio) that does not TALK ABOUT CNN AT ALL! It is thus that it only reasonable to remove the entry stating that CNN is fake news. In addition, there is no proof that CNN is colluding with the Clintons.

Thank you (whoever is reading) for considering this edit, and although the validity of CNN can be questions, it seems unwise to classify it as "fake news" without proper evidence. HAXX0RZ (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done Yeah, standard-issue trolling. Has been removed. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 14:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Spanish language fake news site

http://www.telodijeyo.com is a Spanish language website filled with photos taken from other unrelated news, and concocted stories that alarm the public about vicious killings, fathers raping daughters, mothers stabbing small children, etc. http://alejandro.moralesjimenez.com/ is a broken link on the website. All the signs of fake news are there, with pleas to share and "denounce injustices" that never happened. Please consider including this entry in your list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.48.121.144 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please identify a reliable independent source that describes telodijeyo.com as a fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:18, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

reporting a broken link

The link to footnote 10 (Here's how to outsmart fake news in your Facebook feed". Retrieved 2016-11-20.) with the link http://www.kxlh.com/story/33744836/heres-how-to-outsmart-fake-news-in-your-facebook-feed

got me to this splash page from WXLH.com (at 3/1/17, 10:06 EST):

"Our Apologies The page you requested is currently unavailable. Pages on this site are constantly being revised, updated, and occasionally removed. You may have followed an outdated link or have outdated pages in your browser cache... ."

This article has the same title and does support inclusion of the fake ABCnews.com.co item on the list:

"Here's how to outsmart fake news in your Facebook feed By AJ Willingham, CNN "

But I haven't attempted to edit the footnotes list itself. Roger Helms (talk) 03:30, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

References

 Done Thanks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:42, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Case for CNN's inclusion

The following fake news articles have been published by CNN:

Extended content

CNN fakes interview and interviews own cameraman: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdCk6gJqmoc CNN Claims missing Airplane Disappear into Black hole:: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZpVd7k1Uw6A CNN fakes being at sandy hook, green screen screw up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcG5hnYQjPA CNN fakes being in Middle east during gulf war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTWY14eyMFg CNN gives Clinton debate questions: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/10/31/new-email-shows-dnc-boss-giving-clinton-camp-debate-question-in-advance.html CNN fakes story to make BLM look good, ignores call to violence: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7SxHOLWiUnA CNN fakes satellite feed when two reporters are in the same parking lot: http://www.ebaumsworld.com/videos/the-daily-show-calls-out-cnn/83283367/ Hospital CEO Wins Major Court Victory After CNN fakes Statistics http://lawnewz.com/uncategorized/hospital-ceo-wins-major-court-ruling-after-accusing-cnn-of-false-reporting/ CNN Fakes racist pepe image https://imgflip.com/i/1jxjr7 CNN Green screen fail, pretends to be on a boat https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wn5pIkEHPf0 CNN fakes popularity numbers http://www.businessinsider.com/cnn-fox-news-inauguration-ratings-2017-1 CNN Media Manipulation http://i.magaimg.net/img/48i.jpg CNN fakes crowd Sizes http://i.magaimg.net/img/36l.png CNN lying about use of a song? http://i.magaimg.net/img/48l.jpg CNN and others faking and manipulating words for narrative. http://i.magaimg.net/img/48n.jpg Feed Cuts CNN cutting mic for saying Jesus: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCnZ8G4Ds6k CNN Cuts mic when trump calls out their lies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qPjuk6VO_qs CNN cuts feed when Wikileaks is mentioned: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbA5RE9eK08 CNN Cuts Bernie Sander's mic when he calls them fake news https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqrX8HxcWDE CNN Pushing Russia Conspiracy CNN misleads about Trump officials contact with Russia http://imgur.com/5eX6xgT CNN feeding into Russia conspiracies, claims Russia hacking without evidence http://i.magaimg.net/img/2si.jpg CNN claiming Russian hacking to undermined Trump: http://imgur.com/trMDL87 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUAI9Ce9RL0&app=desktop CNN uses Fallout 4 for hackers footage Misc. CNN calls Fake news equivalent to the N-Word https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi5PLz5yumI CNN ignores gas attack in favor of talking about chicken: http://i.imgur.com/LEtescq.jpg CNN says presidents health isn't our concern http://i.magaimg.net/img/48k.jpg CNN Race Baiting http://archive.is/kh46i CNN says reading wikileaks is illegal https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7DcATG9Qy_A CNN blurs out "Donald Trump Shirt" of man of saved baby. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUAI9Ce9RL0&app=desktop CNN Audience member seen with piece of paper titled "your questions" http://imgur.com/dKfrMpt CNN reuses protesters sign http://imgur.com/jl1cAKP CNN says Illegal immigration isn't illegal: http://imgur.com/C03VH2m

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LordCazicThule (talk • contribs) 15:26, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please identify a reliable independent source that describes CNN as a fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:19, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Justinpio, please stop engaging in personal attacks and explain why you think CNN should be on the list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:25, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

It is not going to be put on this list. Period. No real point in pursuing the idea whatsoever. CNN is not fake news. No reliable source says it is and no reliable source will say it is. Anyone that continues to do so needs to drop the stick and move on. --Majora (talk) 00:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

• I just went through a bunch of those youtube links because why not? You've got to be willing to listen to a claim before you can really dismiss it as ridiculous. Now, I have to say that this request represents some really obvious OR, and some downright impressively bad sourcing. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:15, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post, CNN

MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post as well as the aforementioned CNN etc., need to be included as all have been caught passing off fake news, and this is a fact. Infowars doesn't really belong here. More and more wikipedia is becoming biased just like snopes.com. eft leaning autghours sghould not be writing on wikipedia. Realistically this article should be pulled if the author can't report accurately without being biased. This article is misleading and dishonest as well as missing a slew of other sites and media centers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.159.210.45 (talk) 21:07, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please see previous discussions. We do not add controversial content of this nature without reliable sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:45, 7 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) 04:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

Addition of 24nyt.dk

Addition of 24nyt.dk to the list of fake news websites. This website launched in March 2017 and is one of the first Danish fake news sites, featuring entirely made up stories without citation, largeley targeting immigrants and praising Donald Trump. The site has an anonymous Whois record.

Birkemose, Jan. "Fake News Medie Åbnet i Danmark". Retrieved 15 March 2017.

--Petoabys (talk) 10:03, 15 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done It's too soon to add this website to the list. I mean, this site is less that two weeks old and the odds are against it lasting very long. Wait until it's established and has made some sort of impact, first. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:17, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Do we really want to wait a fake news website has made impact (i.e. misled thousands of readers) before adding it to the list? I mean, if a reliable source considered this worthy of publication, shouldn't we? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, yes. I'm thinking of WP:DUE here, so I ask in return: Do we really want to list every single fake news website, no matter how transient? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:36, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Maybe not, but this site has fake stories that appear designed to fan racist anti-immigrant sentiment, such as one about a North African who sawed off a Jew's finger, and it spreads misinformation about anti-Semitism in Denmark (at least according to the source). Here's another source taking about the same website. This also seems noteworthy since as both sources indicate, this appears to be the first fake news in Denmark. I think we easily surpass the WP:NOTEVERYTHING bar. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I'll admit that the "First fake news in Denmark" might be weighty enough for inclusion. I'm still a little leery about adding a site so new, though. If it fades away in the next few months, then the "first in Denmark" thing won't ever be particularly notable. It's the sort of thing that you'd see in a scholarly book about the history of fake news in Northern Europe or something to that effect, not something you'd see, for example, on Jeopardy. I just don't want this list to become a comprehensive list of websites the reader should avoid, because it should be descriptive, not proscriptive. I suppose if one of you were to add it in, I'd live with it. We can always remove it later if it fades away without much impact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:24, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

My broader feeling about this is that it's a pretty short list of sites that have been affirmatively labeled as fake news by reliable source, so it's premature to cull the list of the less noteworthy members. In fact, if we're going to start doing that then we need to change the selection criteria to say we're only including "noteworthy" sites, or somesuch. And that would open up a whole can of worms. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:56, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of TheTruthAboutCancer.com

This website posts news about fighting cancer, but supplies little evidence for its claims. Some examples:

* What are Chemtrails and How Are They Harming Our Food and Water? (https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/what-are-chemtrails-doing-food-water-supply/)
* The TRUTH about CHEMO (https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/the-truth-about-chemo/)
* Vaccines … Cancer in a Syringe! (https://thetruthaboutcancer.com/vaccines-cancer-in-a-syringe/)

Each of these posts has _tens of thousands_ of shares on facebook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.196.147.180 (talk) 12:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Please identify a reliable independent source that describes TheTruthAboutCancer.com as a fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 09:47, 26 March 2017 (UTC)

Ah, fair enough, I guess this is a no original research thing. 49.196.144.53 (talk) 15:23, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 April 2017

http://www.dcnepal.com/ This website spreads communal violence in Nepal Dhanjusharma (talk) 13:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:36, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

How to find "sources" for fake news sites?

(this is also a response to Inclusion of TheTruthAboutCancer.com above)

Obvious fake news sites are hardly mentioned by the "serious" press or even by the scientific literature. So, how do we get them properly sourced? I just came across a fake news site on veganism (DO NOT OPEN THE link to this site if you do not want to support a commercial fake news site). Is there anyone that collects these things outside Wikipedia, like Beall's List did for predatory publishing? Peteruetz (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Some of the sources cited in the article are lists of fake news websites. But generally, this is a problem for which there is no Wikipedia solution. We cannot engage in original research to determine which news sites are fake and which are not, so we're left relying on the few "serious" news articles out there. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:03, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

If you are going to provide a list of sites for reference that you claim are fake, you should provide your own research to determine they are fake so you can provide an accurate list rather than rely on the claim of other, sometimes fake, news sites with political agendas. Otherwise you risk finding yourself with the title of "fake news". 2601:680:C202:6B40:5D77:FDF:FBD2:17D7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:30, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

This article does provide references that the sites listed are fake news. Look at the column labeled Sources. Earthscent (talk) 12:46, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Buzzfeed

How is Buzzfeed not in here? Vauthn (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying that Buzzfeed is a fake news website? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:17, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

This has been discussed before. ^Falling_Gravity 00:37, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

PolitiFact rates most of their stuff as false. http://www.politifact.com/search/?q=buzzfeed 2601:680:C202:6B40:5D77:FDF:FBD2:17D7 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:27, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

1. That's a list of factchecks that mention Buzzfeed in them, not a list of factchecks of Buzzfeed claims. In fact, most of those mentions are mentions that Buzzfeed debunked the claim before Politifact got to it. Seriously, if you'd taken the time to check a few of those results, you'd have seen that this links demonstrates exactly the opposite of what you claim. Yeesh.
2. Unless Politifact writes up an article claiming Buzzfeed is fake news, that would represent original research which we don't do here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:02, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor from Utah, you clearly didn't read what you linked to. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Occupy Democrats

Occupy Democrats needs to be included as it has a 0% true rating according to Politifact. Please add it to the list. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.147.68.252 (talk) 05:37, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done Does Politifact call Occupy Democrats a fake news website? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:42, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes http://www.politifact.com/personalities/occupy-democrats/

2601:680:C202:6B40:5D77:FDF:FBD2:17D7 (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Editor from Utah, you clearly didn't read what you linked to. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:08, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, I did, and it was a list of dozens of fake Occupy Democrats new stories. But here, and LA Times article that includes an google doc with a much more comprehensive list of fake and other questionable new sites, which include Occupy Democrats. http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-trailguide-updates-want-to-keep-fake-news-out-of-your-1479260297-htmlstory.html

162.115.44.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

In a previous discussion here there was consensus that the Zimdars list (the google doc you're referring to) should not be used because it is not just a list of fake news websites. --Dr. Fleischman ([[User talk:|talk]]) 05:35, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2017

Remove RedFalg News. This is not a fake news site, as anyone can tell by just visiting them. They are a news aggregate site. While they are conservative/right-wing, their content is taken from mainstream media sources like The Washington Post, US News, AP, and Reuters among others. Every news story is sourced at the start and end of the page. 2601:680:C202:6B40:5D77:FDF:FBD2:17D7 (talk) 04:24, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

 Not done You need to obtain consensus on this page before making an edit request. We list Red Flag as a fake news website because U.S. News and World Report describes it as a fake news website. Please see our policies on verifiability and original research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

You have listed one source as your justification for it being fake news, a source that was based of an defunct anonymous website (http://www.fakenewswatch.com/), which incidentally, didn't list RedFlag under its Fake News section, but rather its Click Bait section. Hardly a "consensus". 162.115.44.102 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:16, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

U.S. News & World Report is a respected and reliable news outlet. We only need one such source. Our consensus policy is about editors, not sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is RedFlag News listed as a fake news site?

RedFlag News is a news aggregate site that aggregates from both mainstream media sites and "alternative" conservative websites. However, the "alternative" conservative news sites it pulls from all source their content from mainstream media. Aside from one article from a left-wing author (an author whom RedFlag News has aggregated stories from), what evidence is there it is "fake news"? You can visit the website on any day and see stories posted from AP, Reuters, The Washington Post...

2601:680:C202:6B40:5D77:FDF:FBD2:17D7 (talk) 04:12, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

We list Red Flag as a fake news website because U.S. News and World Report describes it as a fake news website. Please see our policies on verifiability and original research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:10, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh. So if a site on your list of “reliable” sites lies about another site, we go with the liar, eh? 2604:2000:9046:800:8D46:F708:7191:DF4C (talk) 23:12, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

No. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 May 2017

nbc.com.co This is a fake version of NBC.com and NBC News 198.52.13.15 (talk) 11:10, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing out this notable omission. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 13:52, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

References

InfoWars is fake news?

Really? Are we absolutely sure InfoWars is a fake news website, or is this just some liberals trying to censor opinion. please give sources on InfoWars being fake news. 79.73.254.175 (talk) 11:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

There are already citations in the article to support the statement that InfoWars is fake news. Do you require something more? ValarianB (talk) 12:04, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes.

Also, hell yes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:36, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Info Wars is not a fake news site, the citations listed have already been proven to not be fake. Also the Sandy Hook School shooting was not reported on by Info Wars as being a hoax, but he did mention that there are rumors that it was a hoax. All other citations can be proven real. If proof is required I am willing to provide. Escape49 (talk) 02:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

There are 10 sources that show that InfoWars is a fake news site. It really doesn't matter what you are "willing to provide". It isn't being removed. --Majora (talk) 02:46, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok looks like the article on here about NEUTRALITY is not something your looking for. Escape49 (talk) 04:20, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I can see why Wikipedia can't be used as a source for reports. Globalist ran. Infowars is not fake news and the fact you don't have occupy democrats on here or The Young Turks shows how biased this site is. Escape49 (talk) 04:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is this page pro-democrat?

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.

---

It seems like a lot of the listings are republican-based (whether true or not). The sources cited are just basically nonsense cited in the name of citing sources (the source itself is fake). Can we please have an unbiased wiki? There seems to be a lot of Democrats or something trying to use this to push their fake news narrative. I don't see CNN on there even though there are numerous occasions where they blatantly published fake news. What a joke lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.234.225.203 (talk) 00:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Please review our verifiability and neutrality policies. All we can do is report what the reliable sources say. If the reliable sources identify more "republican-based" sites as fake news websites than other sites, then that is what our list must reflect. As an aside, there has been plenty of independent reporting on why so many "republican-based" sites have been identified as fake news. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:38, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, are you implying that the ref to adrforum.com is anything other than a primary source, or that the refs to leadstories.com and business2community.com are to "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"? I suggest trimming out the clearly unreliable sources, and then seeing whether there is a republican or democrat bias in what remains. For the record, I am completely apolitical, because I am convinced that the ability of politicians and political parties to deceive us is far superior to our ability to detect deception. In other words, I don't trust any of them. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I wasn't implying that in the slightest. And it's rather off-topic. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That would be fine if the "reliable sources" didn't include fake news sites.47.137.191.83 (talk) 03:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You may need a "cleaning of the house" a lot of your admins or a few are clearly biased and don't seem to do their own research. Like InfoWars. If it's so fake how do they have a bigger viewership then all the other news outlets? Escape49 (talk) 04:31, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Eat at Joes! 100,000 flies and roaches can't be wrong!! Infowars told us that the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting was a hoax that involved child actors, that Obama secretly runs ISIS and brought Ebola to the US, that the the Moon landing was a hoax, that Lady Gaga's Super Bowl Halftime Show was actually her saying "'I am the goddess of Satan,' ruling over them with the rise of the robots in a ritual of lesser magic", that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was set up as a eugenics trust with "the expressed mission of creating a world-wide race-based system and funded Adolf Hitler", that the United States Air Force used electromagnetic waves to create Hurricane Sandy, that Hillary Clinton is running a child sex ring out of a pizza restaurant, and that Charlie Sheen never did any drugs. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You're apparently confusing quantity with quality. To answer your question, perhaps it's because they've successfully hoodwinked a relatively large proportion of the 20% or so of the population that is susceptible to believing unverifiable bullshit, while the remainder of the population shares the love among dozens of demonstrably reliable sources. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:22, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Not just unverifiable. Verifiably false, and in many cases made up out of thin air. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

aka bullshit, as I said. But you're right; the qualifier was unnecessary. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Rivertorch and Guy Macon you two have forgotten something: Infowars does not have a "bigger viewership" than "all other news outlets". Not even close. They don't even meet WP's notability requirements for an independent article. The only claim to fame it has is among the conspiracy-minded, hardcore right-wing. Hell, the Young Turks have better youtube viewership numbers than Infowars. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:21, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

With the last user citing "conspiracy minded, hardcore right-wing", I think it is safe to say that this page is Democrat biased. Heck, the conspiracy minded, hardcore left-wing thinks that Russia hacked the election and that Comey being fired is another Watergate - and fake news outlets like The New York Times, Washington Post, and CNN report the nonsense. If Wikipedia relies on them, that makes Wikipedia fake news as well. 47.137.191.83 (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but I'm not a Democrat. Are you done whining about the page yet? If so, I'd be happy to discuss any concrete proposals for changes to it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I never called you a Democrat. As for concrete proposals for change - I recommend that the page be modified so as to lose its pro-Democrat bias and comply with WPOV, and that CNN be included on the list of fake news sources. 47.137.191.83 (talk) 17:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

As of this post both The Young Turks and InfoWars are both live. The Young Turks have 143 viewers. InfoWars, through. Alex Jones's Channel has over 7K. So with the knowledge of some of the admins on the site here over 7,000 people are "right-wing conspiracy theorists" while 143 are watching a legit news site. Does anyone else think that doesn't seem right. Escape49 (talk) 17:09, 16 May 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.

Add CNN to the list

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.

---

CNN has repeatedly published fake news, and this has been noted many times by plenty of legitimate sources.

CNN falsely quoted Trump as advocating "racial profiling":

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/296753-cnn-falsely-adds-racial-to-trump-vetting-comments

CNN falsely accused one of its affiliates of airing pornography:

http://www.snopes.com/cnn-half-hour-porn/

CNN falsely accused Richard Spencer of questioning if Jews are people:

http://www.snopes.com/2016/11/22/controversial-cnn-chyron/

Since CNN is one of the most well known fake news organizations in America, it ahould be included on the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:C583:2370:5114:6C3C:E885:3FBD (talk) 08:07, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This article describes fake news sites as those which "intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation for purposes other than news satire." All you've shown is that CNN is not inerrant – which could be said about any information source of any kind, ever. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 12:24, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The first link is a blog entry whose premise is rested upon the assumption that the reader has never heard of things like paraphrasing, reading between the lines, etc. Indeed, CNN regularly accused Trump of advocating for racial profiling (such as [5]) because Trump, well, advocated for racial profiling. Incendiary headlines != fake news.

The second link just doesn't say what you think it says. It would behoove you to actually read these things.

The third is just laughable. During an interview with a self-proclaimed antisemite (whom the world seems to agree needs to be punched in the face more often) and white nationalist, a single chyron writer added an overly opinionated statement. The issue is, Spencer is aa self-admitted sntisemite and white nationalist. Whether or not he doubts the personhood of Jews is a very real question, with the best answer right now being "almost certainly". The problem wasn't the claim itself, it was the overtly political nature of claiming it during a live interview. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Paraphrasing is not the same thing as quoting. Quoting a person as saying "racial profiling" when they did not say those words is a form of misattribution, and in any case Wikipedia editors aren't allowed to do original research, but only report on what reliable sources say. Thehill is a reliable source that states that CNN misquoted Trump.

Even if your claim to be able to read Spencer's mind were credible, it would constitute original research. The fact is that CNN claimed that he had "questions if Jews are people", when he had not done so (or mentioned Jews at all). Both of these facts are documented by Snopes, which is a reliable source. 2602:306:C583:2370:6C21:C6E9:5122:B239 (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) Original comment. —JJBers 19:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

What is wrong with being a white nationalist? Pretty much everything. And no, it doesn't make me racist, or even anti-white. It makes me ethical. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

This issue has not been resolved (and has not been open for a week) and therefore should not be closed. In any case, you are involved in it and therefore are not permitted to close it under Wikipedia's guidelines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Closing_discussions#Closure_procedure). Please refrain from violating this policy in the future.

Also, for the record, I am not the same person as 47.137.191.83. 2602:306:C583:2370:6C21:C6E9:5122:B239 (talk) 05:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

OK, that does it. You're clearly not here to build an encyclopedia. Nothing more to see here, people, move along. Let's DFTT. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 17:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Assertion is not evidence. Tell us what is wrong with being a white nationalist. You dismissed CNN's attack on Spencer by calling him a white nationalist as if that settles the matter. Why? 47.137.191.83 (talk) 17:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Individuals with legitimate concerns are being shut down on this talk page by clearly biased editors. These censoring editors are clearly not here to build an encyclopedia as they do not seem to understand that it does not include:

"Expressing unpopular opinions – even extremely unpopular opinions in a non-disruptive manner, Merely advocating and implementing changes to Wikipedia articles or policies with reliable sources is allowed and even if these changes made are incompatible with certain Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, it is not the same as not being here to build an encyclopedia". 47.137.191.83 (talk) 17:23, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

That is fine, but there are limits to what is considered appropriate editor conduct, and several editors think you clearly crossed the line with comments such as this one, in which you accused a fellow editor of being racist. We are here to build an encyclopedia, not to engage in ad hominem personal attacks. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The President of the United States said that CNN is fake news. That ought to carry some weight. 47.137.191.83 (talk) 18:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It doesn't, since the President of the United States isn't a reliable source. Look, the issue of whether CNN is a fake news website or not has come up over and over again, and the clear consensus is that it's not. At this point, please consider either pursuing dispute resolution or dropping the stick. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:19, 17 May 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.

GotNews

Is there enough sourcing to support a listing for Chuck Johnson's GotNews? Mother Jones The Rise and Fall of Twitter's Most Infamous Right-Wing Troll, Forbes A Troll Outside Trump Tower Is Helping To Pick Your Next Government, and Salon Trump digs himself deeper: Given his love of fake news, the “tapes” are probably fake, too characterize the website as being fake, false, and misleading. ValarianB (talk) 14:03, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm good with it, presuming the label is used at some point in those sources (too lazy to check). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I oppose. The sources indicate that Johnson is an Internet activist, not someone pretending to write bonafide news stories. None of those sources indicate that GotNews.com purports to be a news site, let alone that it contains fake news. Remember that "fake" and "false" are very different things. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Wouldn't that rationale bar Alex Jones and Infowars from being listed, then? Jones believe he was writing bonafide news when he stated that Sandy Hook was a false flag op. I'm not seeing how Charles Johnson writing that Obama is gay, that Michael Brown had a rap sheet, and so on, is any different. Heck, there's a Politico article titled How Trump gets his fake news, it explicitly cited Johnson and GotNews as one of the sources for Trump's "fake news". ValarianB (talk) 17:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, because we have a reliable independent source calling Infowars fake news. The dividing line between fake news and bullshit blogging may may be a blurry one in some cases, but they are two distinct concepts. One is, "I'm going to pretend to be a professional journalist in order to trick my readers," and the other is, "I'm going to say whatever I want, fuck what other people say." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

And the Politico source--a fascinating read, by the way--doesn't describe GotNews as a fake news website. It just says that Johnson had no concrete evidence for that piece and had "lobbed false accusations in the past and recanted them." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The Politico article says that Donald Trump is handed fake news by his staffers, and directly states that Charles Johnson's GotNews is one of those sources. How is this not a literal A-to-B-to-C? ValarianB (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

First, "fake news" is only in the headline and is clearly to grab readers' attention. Second, the source explains that one source of misinformation was actual fake news unrelated to GotNews.com (a fake Time magazine cover). That could easily explain the use of "fake news" in the headline. Third, lots of actual fake news has its origins in whisper campaigns, rumors and spurious tweets. That doesn't mean the campaigns, rumors, and tweets are themselves fake news. The falsehoods only become fake news when they're packaged up in something falsely purporting to be legitimate journalism. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:44, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

GotNews refers to itself as a news site in its very name, formats their website like a news website, offers "breaking" stories, and labels its articles "News". The sources don't explicitly claim that it purports to be a news site because there's no point. Anyone familiar with the site already knows that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that, but the independent reliable sources don't say that. At least not the ones provided by Valarian. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I understand that the sources don't explicitly label it a news site (though, as Valerian pointed out just above, they do make statements that presume that it's a news site), but that doesn't change the fact that it's verifiably a news site. Your objection is a technicality. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:25, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

If a random person calls their blog a news site, I don't think that makes it a news site rather than a blog. All sorts of folks, bloggers, conspiracy theorists, legitimate NGOs, youth groups, etc. post stuff online and in newletters that they call "news." That doesn't mean they're pretending to be professional journalists. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Have you been to http://gotnews.com/? They are clearly pretending to be a legitimate news site. Their byline is "President Trump reads us. You should too." There's a paypal donate button with the caption "Please support independent journalism". The byline of the Mother Jones piece is "My journey into the mind of the 26-year-old who's blurred the line between trolling and journalism. ". There are examples like this snopes.com article which classifies a story from gotnews as "Fake News". I understand what your objection is, but for the life of me, I can't understand why you're making it.

In the end, your objection only makes sense if there remains the possibility that gotnews doesn't actually purport to be a news site. But that's clearly not the case, here. By failing to include this (or by including it with some caveats), we'd be introducing doubt where there is none in the reliable sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:43, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The Snopes article is something. The actual article doesn't say anything about fake news, but it is categorized under the "Fake News" subsection of Snopes. I honestly don't know what to make of that. Is Snopes' categorization system a reliable source? I'm inclined to say no. For instance here's the first item I pulled from their "Fake News" category, and it suggests that the site in question is intended as satire (expressly out of scope for our list). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:48, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Snopes is not obliged to use the same definition as us. We are obliged to use the same definition as the RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:53, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Ok but my point is that just because something is analyzed under Snopes' "Fake News" subsection doesn't mean it should be included in our list. Some of these Snopes article expressly call sites fake news (e.g. this), and some don't. That's what we should be relying on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

To be clear, the reason I'm so anal about this is because I believe we have to maintain a very sharp line between fake and false. Once we start including stuff that's false, it's a very slippery slope before we have to include legitimate news sites on our list (like cnn.com). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:58, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

The Mother Jones source calls it trolling. That's pretty much as fake as fake can get. It's only false by virtue of being fake. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No, beyond the headline the Mother Jones article doesn't exactly call it trolling, and even if it did that doesn't mean it's fake. Trolling means inflammatory, irrelevant, offensive, or otherwise disruptive. It doesn't mean fake (or even false). --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:08, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Also, as Valierian pointed out above, the politico piece indirectly, but unarguably described it as fake news. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Inarguably? Then what's this? ;-p --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:10, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that if reliable sources report that a site routinely and deliberately presents false information, and that site identifies itself as a news site or claims to be practicing journalism, then it's hardly a leap for us to label it a fake news site. Ideally, the sources would label it that way, but I don't suppose they had Wikipedia in mind when they wrote their articles. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I tentatively agree with this. The key is "routinely and deliberately." I don't believe we have any sources that support this. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

A stretch. A hell of a stretch. You read an awful lot in a a very small amount of text to make that case. It's not an argument built from the postulates, but from the conclusion. In my book, that's not even an argument. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:33, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to agree with them, but I stand by my arguments. They are defensible and made in good faith. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:36, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Doctor, you have never given me reason to suspect you have ever edited in bad faith and I do not ever want to give you the impression that I think so. I've found you, as a whole, to be an insightful and persuasive editor. That does not mean, however, that every argument you make is persuasive. This one is, I'm afraid, an outlier. Salon described someone handing a "Story" from gotnews to Trump which angered him; a terminology that matches with news (and fake news), but doesn't match with blogs or opinion pieces (who produce "posts" and "articles"). Salon tends to be rather meticulous about this sort of terminology, being part of the digital generation itself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hrm, I guess I missed the Salon source, which Valarian graciously pointed to. I suppose I can accept that. I have generally found Salon to be factually reliable although its framing and analysis is unreliable. I guess this counts as factual content. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? Relying on Mother Jones to determine if something is fake news? Mother Jones is fake news. 47.137.191.83 (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

And your source for that kernel of wisdom is...what? Someone's late-night tweet, perhaps? Like many other publications, Mother Jones isn't a gold-standard source from cover to cover. For instance, it runs polemical opinion pieces, just as major newspapers do. It also has a long and enviable history of forthright investigative reporting and careful writing, with more than adequate editorial oversight and fact-checking. Unlike many newspapers, it's nonpartisan and doesn't endorse candidates for office. For the purposes of this article, citing the MJ article linked above as a reference seems perfectly reasonable. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:42, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

LOL@ Mother Jones is non-partisan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.137.191.83 (talk) 06:12, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Mother Jones, like most sites and people, has an ideological leaning. Leaning in one direction is not a disqualifier for being used as a source, what matters is the rep for factchecking and accuracy in their reports. As this IP address user keeps making fanciful claims of CNN being fake news, I think their input to this page should be set aside in future discussions. ValarianB (talk) 12:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. Neither this nor this inspire confidence. It appears to be a static IP, but you never know. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 12:38, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

This Mother Jones debate is a non-issue as far as I can tell. There is broad consensus across WP that Mother Jones is generally reliable, but the source cited by Valarian doesn't support the proposed content. End of story on that one. Let's move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:54, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Verification issues

Guy Macon, I mass-reverted a whole bunch of sources you removed because it was just becoming incredibly tedious to weed out what I believed were the few appropriate deletions from the much larger number of inappropriate deletions. I ask you to read the prior discussions here, as some of them address your concerns, and then perhaps we can discuss your concerns on a source-by-source or concern-by-concern basis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I am fine with that as long as you follow up by doing your own purge of unreliable sources using your own criteria. If I come back in a day or so and find that you haven't removed the cite to The Daily Mail that you just reverted back in, you and I are going to have a problem. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:57, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't appreciate being threatened like that, but between Neutrality and me we got both refs to Daily Mail sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:14, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I dropped the Daily Mail. In terms of cites on this article, I agree that we need to go slower and more specific - i.e., source-by-source or concern-by-concern. I think the majority of sources and entries (85-90%) on this page are fine under our ordinary criteria (both wiki-wide and on this page). I might drop or substitute a few citations. For example, what about Fusion.net and a few opinion columns? I'm inclined to axe these. Neutrality^talk 22:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Fusion seems like a really tough one. It's definitely legitimate news, not a blog or anything, and it's owned by Fusion Media Group, which also has reputable news holdings such as Univision and Gizmodo. The news senior editorial staff includes people with substantial experience, such as Dodai Stewart, who spent 7 years at Jezebel, and Alexis Madrigal, who wrote for The Atlantic (as well as Wired and Fresh Air). The authors of these stories are not exactly journalism powerhouses but they do have established journalism experience (here, here). And I did find a couple of reliable sources cited it prominently (here, here) (not that I'm a huge fan of the NY Post or anything, but I believe there's consensus that it's generally reliable). All in all I lean slightly toward saying these Fusion sources are reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:45, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Dr. Fleischman, the above is a good example of why I am having trouble trusting your judgement about sources for a web site being fake news. The Fusion source we are are talking about is at [ https://fusion.kinja.com/inside-the-extremely-crazy-conspiracy-website-that-dona-1793861176 ] and nowhere does the source call beforeitsnews.com a fake news site. It calls it a conspiracy website. Which it clearly is, as anyone who looks at [ h t t p : / / beforeitsnews.com/ ] can clearly see. I think you need to step back and let others decide what sources support claims of a site being fake news. If you don't like my evaluations, then go with Neutrality's evaluations. --Guy Macon (talk) 07:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to stop threatening me and personalizing this discussion before we end up on the drama boards. I didn't make any claim as to whether the cited Fusion sources support the content. Neutrality raised the issue of Fusion's reliability, so I responded. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

So when Neutrality wrote "For example, what about Fusion.net and a few opinion columns? I'm inclined to axe these." on the List of fake news websites talk page in a section labeled (by you) "Verification issues" with a top comment saying that you "mass-reverted a whole bunch of sources (Guy) removed" your reply ("I lean slightly toward saying these Fusion sources are reliable") wasn't about whether the source supported the content? What do you think we are discussing here?

Mass reverting several hours of my work because you found it "tedious" to evaluate my edits was a deeply aggressive act. You shouldn't be surprised to find that such behavior displeases me. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:38, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought Neutrality was talking about Fusion's reliability so I analyzed solely that issue. I agree that the source doesn't verify that beforeitsnews.com is fake news and shouldn't be used for that purpose. And yes, I did anticipate that my mass revert might bother you; I didn't do it lightly, I started this discussion in order to explain myself and make clear that I'm open to discussing these issues, and I was hoping that given the depth of your experience you'd be willing and able to keep things constructive and not act on any impulse to retaliate. With that said I suggest we take any further discussion about conduct to user talk. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• GUy, please take it down a notch. I think we're all on the same page wrt this; we want the sourcing to be good, which means weeding out bad sources. Can we just stick to discussion any sources that are questionable? I agree that the Fusion source is no good, for the reasons given above. Now what's next? (I'm looking through now, but it's a bit of work, and I'm at work, so I can't go very fast.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:51, 24 May 2017 (UTC)