Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

ABCnews.com.co

This entry clearly is a fake news site and belongs on this list. Alas, two out of the four citations are more examples of low-quality sourcing, so I am removing those two sources but leaving the entry because the other two sources are OK.

The Washington Post ref[1] does not actually call ABCnews.com.co a fake news site. It say that Paul Horner is the "impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire", and calls one of Paul Horner's tweets and one of his craigslist ads fake, but never actually refers to any page on ABCnews.com.co. The tweet does, but a tweet by Paul Horner is not a reliable source.

The CNN ref[2] is an example of a reliable source that simply reports what an unreliable source (Zimdars) says.

The two remaining refs are enough for inclusion. If someone wants to add more refs to reliable sources, there are several on our ABCnews.com.co page. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree on both of these sources. The WaPo author says of a specific ABCnews.com.co page, "I’d call it hoaxing or fake news," and says that ABCnews.com.co's owner is the "impresario of a Facebook fake-news empire." The embedded video, published by WaPo, discusses ABCnews.com.co and then stamps a big red "FAKE" on it. Pretty unequivocable. The CNN source refers in its own voice to "several fake reports from abcnews.com.co." The fact that the source cites Zimdar in support does not somehow magically render it unreliable. (I understand part of your goal here is to discredit Zimdar's list, but no one here is suggesting relying on Zimdar's list, so this seems like a straw man effort to me.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:41, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm going with Guy on this one. If there's doubt (about a source), leave it out. Guy's doubts seem to be rather nitpicky, but I've no doubt (pun intended, thank you) that they formed in good faith and are being expressed in good faith. Since removing this source doesn't negatively impact the article, I'm fine with humoring Guy's doubts on this one. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with leaving them out on a WP:CITEKILL basis, just not on a WP:V basis. So perhaps we can move on. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:07, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Dr. F on this one. I'm always up for deleting duplicative cites (reliable or not) on the basis of WP:OVERCITE, so I'm fine with this.Neutrality^talk 21:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This is my opinion as well. And I strongly agree with the statement that "the fact that the source cites Zimdar in support does not somehow magically render it unreliable." Guy and Masem are the only ones pushing that idea as far as I can see, both here and at RSN. Frankly, it's hogwash - it's not our place to second guess or reject how professional reporters, publishing in well respected RS, get their information. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:21, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion

I just went through the list and removed several sites that lacked reliable sourcing.

This page needs to be more than just a "I don't like it" or "someone doesn't like it" list. To be included, a site must:

• Claim to be or appear to be a news site, not a blog or an editorial opinion.
• Be called "fake news" by reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.
• Not be an obvious parody or humor site. Parody sites have their own list.
• Not be based on a citations to otherwise reliable sources that merely report or repost claims from an unreliable source.
• Receive significant coverage in the sources cited, not just a mention in passing.
• Not be shut down. This is a list of fake news websites, not a list of former fake news websites.

--Guy Macon (talk) 03:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

This is actually contrary to longstanding consensus. This has been discussed extensively already and the broad consensus is that there is only criterion for inclusion: "Be called "fake news" by reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:10, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I can't agree that defunct fake news websites aren't notable (to omit them would indeed be to omit the historical perspective that belongs in an encyclopedia and helps combat recentism). Nor do I agree with removing the citations to the Washington Post, which ran for a time an excellent column about fake news. That seems really bizarre to me. Neutrality^talk 04:20, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I am open to discuss any of my criteria for inclusion. Let's talk about it, see if we can agree, and if not, consider posting an RfC.

Let's start with some of the easy ones.

Would a separate section for closed sites be an acceptable compromise?

I am pretty sure that WP:WEIGHT requires significant coverage in the sources cited, not just a mention in passing.

A Reliable source reporting that an unreliable source said X does not equal the reliable source saying X. In such a case, the "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy" often only means that they checked and confirmed what the unreliable source said. The exact wording is important; did the RS actually say that a site was fake, or just report that someone else said it was fake.

I would also note that most of my criteria for inclusion comes from a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliable sources for fake news?. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I do not agree with these criteria. A separate section for closed sites is inappropriate. Some of the most heavily covered fake news sites have are apparently down, but in most cases we don't have secondary sources saying they were shut down, so we'd have to police the sites and rely on their status as a primary source - awkward and not encyclopedic. Not to mention that this is not a long list and I don't see a compelling reason for distinguishing active sites from inactive sites. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Significant coverage is definitely not a requirement, and nothing in WP:WEIGHT suggests that. The relevant guideline is WP:LSC, which states expressly that list members don't have to meet our notability criteria if we don't want them to. This is not a long list and if we only included notable sites the list would be even shorter and we'd be doing our readers a disservice. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Technically speaking, I agree that a reliable source reporting that an unreliable source called a website a fake news site wouldn't qualify the site for inclusion in the list; a reliable source is only reliable for statements made in its own voice. However, a reliable source that says a website is a fake news site in its own voice, and then quotes or cites an unreliable source, is still a reliable source, and we can and should still rely on it. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Only commenting seeing frustration from the WP:RS/N board. I think there needs to be multiple independently-acting, reliable sources to deem a site "fake news", since it can be both a legitimate as well as a contentious label, as well as better refinement to avoid sites that on the subjective scale of what "fake news" is. Having three or more such sources avoids having one person's opinion be used as a sole reason to include.

Further, there are sites that are purposely trying to trick its target audience with purposely-false stories which I have not seen anyone disagree that this is what "fake news" really means; that we can document without any issue. But then when you start adding Infowars (which has problems, not trying to defend it), that's less about being earnestly deceitful, and more about being earnest about a fringe/conspiracy theory they believe, and they are not trying to deceive their target audience. Opposition would outright call that "fake news" now using that as a label, which is a subjective call. So this list should avoid including these types of sites. --MASEM (t) 23:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

A requirement that we have three or more sources per site goes way beyond what our verifiability policy requires and would eviscerate this list. I would strongly oppose any such requirement. Further, the idea that "fake news" is some sort of subjective determination is nonsense. Look up fake, and look up news. These are not value-based determinations the reliable sources are making. Wikipedia has all sorts of content that is more difficult for reliable sources to nail down than whether a website is a fake news website. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 00:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Then by that logic we should be listing every newspaper that Trump has declared as fake news (No, I'm not suggesting that). Basing inclusion on only site, without any corroboration, is akin to pushing a fringe viewpoint, and hence why on many of these type of subjective lists, such as List of films considered the worst, we look to have multiple sources to give a corroborating stance. It's not a V issue, it's an NPOV issue; and if that causes the list to be decimated, so much the better; it's a tricky area that we probably shouldn't be spending much time developing at this point per RECENTISM. And most of sources that have called out the "fake news" sites that are not those deliberately trying to deceive readers are not using value-judgement but opinion and subjective measure. --MASEM (t) 05:56, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't understand the basis for any of that. 1. Trump is not a reliable source, whereas most (preferably all) of the sources cited in our page are reliable sources. 2. There is nothing "fringe" about relying on a reliable source when there are no conflicting sources. 3. NPOV has nothing to do with it; WP:NPV is about giving appropriate weight to conflicting sources and maintaining neutrality of language, neither are applicable here. 4. I've never heard of WP:RECENTISM being used as a basis for establishing list criteria; that makes no sense to me. 5. The contention that most of the cited sources are using "opinion and subjective measure" and that this is is anything like List of films considered the worst appears to be completely unfounded Seriously, I'm at a complete loss trying to reconcile what appear to be baseless arguments with your usually insightful comments. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:17, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Are you saying that Trump is not a reliable source but Zimdars is? If so, on what basis did you make that decision? (I say neither is a reliable source on the topic of what is and what is not fake news). --Guy Macon (talk) 06:30, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

No, I didn't say anything about Zimdars. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 06:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The problem is that the term "fake news" has multiple definitions, one that is a very objective one, and others that clearly are subjective and would fall under WP:LABEL. The objecting meaning, when the term first came into use, described sites that purposely sought to deceive readers by appearing like a legit news site with name and domain, and creating stories that had some elements of truth but mostly were made up. These are legitimately problematic and caused issues during the last election, for example, which is why Google, Facebook, and many others are trying to rid results from these.

But then sources started grouping primarily alt-right websites that were publishing conspiracy theories and other material that exaggerated or skewed information towards a specific angle, eg sites like Infowars. That's a very subjective application of "fake news", as these sites aren't trying to purposely deceive, the owners earnestly believe what they write is truth. In a very loose definition of "fake news" these fit, but they don't fit when you taken into the account the stigma of the label "fake news" on these sites. They certainly are fringe or conspiracy theory websites and far from anything reliable, but it is subjective to call them "fake news", but in this current culture war, all sides are using such types of derogatory language to label their ideological opponents to dismiss their arguments. Once people started with that (particularly after Pizzagate), then you had everyone using "fake news" to describe sites that they thought weren't telling the truth, or at least what they thought was their version of the truth, further diluting the meaning. Again, using Trump as the most visible example when he calls out the WaPost and others as fake news. The term has lost any objective meaning. This is where RECENTISM comes in - this is a current ongoing phenomena in the political and press circles, and we have no idea where it's going to end up. It is a type of thing that we should wait with perfect 20/20 hindsight on before really documenting it, otherwise we're getting too caught up in the current mudslinging on both sides.

So once it is accepted that "fake news" is subjective, any WP list gathering fake news must be extremely careful to avoid singular statements of a site being "fake news" to drive inclusion, otherwise you just need a random statement from a journalist from any RS to drop a site on here, which is clearly not neutral, in the same way one random critic's comment would not be sufficient to add a movie to the list of worst films, following the fact that this is all aspects of WP:LABEL. If we were talking a statement that more objective, then one RS is all you need, but indexing something under a subjective label, and one clearly meant as negative, should require some type of corroboration of opinion, which is why having 3 or more sources to support each claimed "fake news" site would be appropriate. Here, at least, I would argue that Zimdar's list can be used as one of those references (as it has been noted by others), but it can't be used in isolation, and we can't use republications of that list as the second or third sources; the sources should have arrived at the conclusion that a website is a "fake news" one independently. --MASEM (t) 13:25, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Seriously - I don't know where any of this historical narrative comes from except from your personal opinion. Yes, some folks have misapplied the term "fake news" to real news that they happeened to disagree with. We agree on that. But that doesn't magically change the term "fake news" into a subjective label or magically turn otherwise reliable sources that use the term into unreliable sources. All it means is that some folks have misapplied the term. Your argument seems literally equivalent to saying that if enough unreliable sources say that black is white, then now we need three reliable sources before saying that anything is black or white because "black" and "white" have become subjective terms. No. "Black," "white," and "fake" have dictionary definitions that have nothing to do with values or subjective impressions. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

What I'm saying is what is said by sources, see for example [3] under the "What is Happening Now?" section. If we know a term like "fake news" that was once objective has been co-opted to be a verbal attack, then we have to now consider it a label, and be very aware of how that impacts our neutrality in reporting about it. --MASEM (t) 21:15, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The only relevant bit of that source is this sentence: "Some claim that the term has now been co-opted by politicians and commentators to mean anything they disagree with - making the term essentially meaningless and more of a stick to beat the mainstream press with than a phenomenon in itself." "Some say" doesn't mean that the term has been co-opted, and it doesn't mean that the term is now value-laden and therefore subject to WP:LABEL. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:18, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's another more recent source about how the term has lost any real meaning. And another, and another. And actually from that last, this is a good summary of the situation. Fake news has a real meaning — deliberately constructed lies, in the form of news articles, meant to mislead the public. For example: The one falsely claiming that Pope Francis had endorsed Donald Trump, or the one alleging without basis that Hillary Clinton would be indicted just before the election. But though the term hasn’t been around long, its meaning already is lost. Faster than you could say “Pizzagate,” the label has been co-opted to mean any number of completely different things: Liberal claptrap. Or opinion from left-of-center. Or simply anything in the realm of news that the observer doesn’t like to hear. from here.

Even if you disagree with those points of view, I think it's necessary to use common sense to consider "fake news" as an subjective label nowadays, particularly for trying to keep a neutral stance for WP. It's a more conservative (as in cautious, not political stance) position that we should be taking if we're not going to be waiting the test of time for inclusion. And that conservative position is that "fake news" is a value-laden label that should be handled delicately. Also keep in mind: "fake news" is a a story about the media. The media are not an independent source on reporting on stories about the media. That should also be a red flag that we should tread carefully when media throws up "fake news" at a website that doesn't fit the original definition (the sites from from Eastern Europe that appeared during the election cycle).

One thing that comes up both the Telegraph and that January WaPost article is the nature of the original fake news websites being "deliberate" in their presentation of fake news in a manner to deceive; the Telegraph further notes that they were profiting off that deception, further part of their actions being "deliberate". All these other websites are sites with misinformation of some type or another but they aren't being deliberate in deceiving readers. --MASEM (t) 23:40, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You have repeated the same point over and over again, that because some folks are using the term "fake news" to describe something subjective that isn't actually fake, the term has become subjective and therefore subject to WP:LABEL. I fundamentally reject that logical leap, which I see as completely the opposite of "common sense," as you call it, and no source you've presented so far has made that leap. And I fundamentally reject your starting point that "'fake news' is a story about the media." No. No. No. Fake news is a story about liars who pretend to be the media. Then there's second story about people who hate the media and are trying to discredit it by calling it fake news. These are two completely separate stories. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:18, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

You've just confirmed what I've been saying: there's the objective "fake news" of sites that are deliberately trying to deceive readers, eg the definition up to the election; and the subjective "fake news" used to discredit sites due to ideological differences (from either side of the political spectrum). That's what those sources all point out. To that end, that means that if I see the words "fake news" describing a site in a news article, it could be taken to be either meaning unless there is sufficient context to know if they're talking about the objective term or the subjective one, and to that end , we need to assume the worst - that without more context, "fake news" is a subjective term. There still is the use of "fake news" to objectively describe sites that are intent on deceiving and profiting from that, but far more often the term is used disparagingly. Hence why the inclusion for this list has to take that into account and be more exclusive (requiring multiple RSes, making sure we're looking for the intent to deceiving rather than, as one of the above sources calls it "misinformation site" to distinguish from true "fake news site", etc. --MASEM (t) 13:34, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Why on earth would we think there is any chance that reliable sources might be using the term "fake news" in the subjective, Donald Trump, "news-I-disagree-with" sense? These are professional journalists for heaven's sake. I could be mistaken, but when journalists and reputable news media use words that appear in the dictionary, they tend to use them to mean what the dictionary says they mean. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

70 news

[4] Looks like a blog to me, not a fake news site. A site trying to impersonate a legitimate news site doesn't have content like this:

"Update: Anyone asking where I got the figures, it was from twitter posts. Knowing the Democrat media have been dragging their liberal feet giving Michigan to Trump – finally they did, with Arizona finally declared two days ago – Trump now has the 309" followed by an explanation that when drawing up those numbers he has decided to not count three million votes.

That is clearly a blog, not a fake news site.

Also note that, as a good example of the horrible sourcing on this page, one of the two citations does not call 70 news a fake news site. This citation, like many of the other dodgy citation in this article, should have been removed long ago.

The other source only mentions fake news in the headline. There have been multiple discussions[5] on the reliable sources noticeboard (Example: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 75#Headlines) on this. The overwhelming consensus on claims found only in headlines is:

"headlines are not reliable sources."

"Headlines are not part of an actual article, and the fact is that Guardian headlines are just as apt as Daily Mail headlines to be inaccurate."

"the headlines for every newspaper are designed to get readers, and only the body of the article is what counts."

"we should bar headlines as being used to assert that any claim is made within an article from any source."

"Nor do I believe that headlines are an integral part of any newspaper article, reliably conveying the context of such article."

"I am a firm believer that no headlines should be used as a source of "fact" about a topic"

"I consider headlines to have been written by headline writers and generally aimed at attracting readers. Even the The Guardian headlines are not a "source" for claims of fact. Sorry - the fact that headlines in many newspapers are designed to get readers has been true for well over a century. What counts are the facts stated in actual articles."

"Headlines of news articles should absolutely not be used for RS even if from an RS. They are normally crafted by people downstream of the editing process from the original writer, and meant to summarize and draw eyes, and thus make take liberties with phrasing to do just that. So if a headline makes a claim that the actual article it is tied to says nothing about, it should be flat out ignored"

"Headlines from any newspaper are used to attract readers and are generally written by headline writers and not by the writer of the actual story. I personally suggest that we not allow the headline be used to source a claim. If the claim is sourced with an article, we can use the article. If the claim is not supported by the clear text of an article, then the headline is worthless as a source. Thus there is, except in cases where the headline is, per se, the topic of the claim ("Dewey Defeats Truman" for example). This has been true for a great many years, and is true of essentially all newspapers. "

" I have argued that a simple headline alone is not a valid source for a claim, especially since newspaper headlines are often not written by the authors of the articles they headline."

"It is true, amazingly enough, that all newspaper headlines are not actually sources of separate 'fact' "

"Newspaper headlines are usually given less weight than the article they are attached to, because they often simplify the subject in order to be concise and/or pull in readers."

"The problem is editors who think headlines are the same as articles. Frequently, a full article in any newspaper gives the proper qualifying sense and detail (including the Daily Mail actual full articles) while the headline is written by ... a headline writer. The intent of that person is to hook a reader (e.g. the "hooks" given for clickbait sites). I rather think that using the "headline" for any claim is beyond iffy, but there are those who regard the headlines fondly"

"I suggest, in fact, that "headlines" not be allowed as a source for what an article states, and only be allowed to illustrate what the headline stated and cited as such."

--Guy Macon (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I largely agree with this analysis. One of the cited sources doesn't verify that 70news.com is a fake news website, and the other only calls 70news.com "fake news" in its headline. (I wouldn't go so far as to say that headlines are always unreliable as a categorical rule, but I think they're often unreliable and this is a good example. "Fake news" has been a hot-button catchphrase and headline editors know it attracts eyeballs.) However, here are two sources that do seem to verify 70news.com as fake news: New York Magazine and CBS News. So, I support inclusion of 70news.com with these alternate sources. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:28, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. It's still a blog, not a fake news site. Your first ref calls it "a fake-news piece from a WordPress blog". your second ref calls it a "a fake news blog". To be a fake news site a site must be a site that is made to look like a legitimate news site with the intent to mislead. Blogs -- even stupid, misleading blogs -- do not meet the criteria. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm mistaken, a blog is a type of site; ergo, a fake news blog is a type of fake news site. The unstated assumption in your argument is that a blog cannot be a fake news site. This is incorrect, as the the CBS source clearly indicates that a blog can be a fake news site. And I do not support conducting unnecessary original research to decide whether a site is a blog. The sources state pretty clearly that this is a blog, and it's also a fake news site. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with DrFleischman. A blog that purports to convey news, that gets enough attention to be subject to scrutiny by reliable sources and is called "fake" by them should meet the criteria here. If not, then we should change the criteria. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

But it goes back to the fact that the site is not trying to set out to deceive its readership; the author seems to earnestly believe what they wrote, and the site's layout is nothing like a legitimate news site as true "fake news" websites are. It's one of those sites that has gotten caught up in how badly "fake news" is thrown around to disparage controversial opinions. --MASEM (t) 19:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

You are engaging in original research, and equating reliable sources with disparagers like Trump. They couldn't be more different. These sources are reliable and verify the content. That should end the matter. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

But it goes back to the fact that the site is not trying to set out to deceive its readership; That is extremely debatable. Whether a person legitimately believes in their political ideals is a different question to whether they legitimately believe everything they say in support of those ideals. I buy this argument for the far-out conspiracy theory sites because people tend not to tell such outrageous lies, but people often do believe outrageous things. But for a site like this, that sticks well within the realm of credibility with their claims? We cannot make informed judgements about whether they believe their falsehoods or not. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:59, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I see zero evidence that Masem is engaging in original research. All I see is him patiently explaining the guideline found at WP:LABEL to you. Also, the point is not whether a site is trying to deceive its readership. The the point is whether a site is trying to deceive its readership into thinking that the site is a legitimate news outlet. Fake, wrong, and deceptive are different words with different meanings. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Masem was responding to DrFleischman, not to me. I did not mention original research at all. And they did not at any point mention WP:LABEL, nor make any allusion to it in the crux of their argument. But I see something curious in your argument. Could you give me your best definition of "fake news site"? I think there might be some miscommunication about the definition going on here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

LABEL came in from an argument in a previous section I made (before this post). --MASEM (t) 21:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: "A blog that purports to convey news, that gets enough attention to be subject to scrutiny by reliable sources and is called 'fake' by them should meet the criteria here", how about tweets, Facebook pages, YouTube videos, editorials, etc. that "that purport to convey news"? Do we include those as well? The very title of this page. per WP:COMMONTERM, is a list of news sites that are fake, not a list of blogs that make incorrect claims about what is in the news.

This list could be a very useful resource if only it contained what the title says it contains; fake websites that might fool a reasonable person into thinking they are legitimate news outlets. By expanding the criteria to include blogs, editorials, conspiracy theory sites, etc., we are turning that useful resource into a list of pages that say incorrect things on the Internet.

70 news is a great example of what should not be on this list. It is a blog which clearly presents itself as a blog. It made an incorrect claim -- that Trump won the popular vote -- and explained how it got those numbers -- by not counting three million votes that the blog author thinks should not be counted. Nowhere does it pretend to be a news website the way, say ABCnews.com.co does. We should not add every blog that makes false claims to this list. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We don't. We only add the sites that are described by reliable sources as fake news. You are engaging in original research to say that even though these sources say 70news is fake news, it really isn't, because the website says X or Y. That's textbook original research. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:21, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We're not in the business of interpreting or analyzing the hows and whys of reliable sources describing fake news sites as fake news sites. That they are described as fake news is enough for inclusion on this list. I'd support a mass reversal of Guy Macon's gutting of this article until entries that he or others have issue with can be discussed. ValarianB (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• @Guy Macon: Could you share with us your best definition of a fake news site? I asked earlier, but I didn't ping you so I'm not sure if you saw it. Use your own words; I'm totally fine with a completely OR definition, I just want to get a better idea of where you're coming from. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:07, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep in the list On the strength of the NYmag and CBS sources alone. The "blog" argument is ridiculous hair-splitting, it's a website that RS have said spreads fake news (aka, a "fake news website") To say otherwise is just dissembling. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We are, however, in the business of determining whether the sources actually call the site a fake news site as opposed to a blog that talks about fake news. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I should point out that a blog that talks about fake news would be highly likely to talk about the fact that it's fake. Such a blog would not simply publish fake stories, defend them from criticism and repeat ad nauseum, which is what this site does. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Like I said: hair-splitting. Trying to rule a site out because RS call it a "fake news blog" instead of a "fake news website" (nevermind the fact that a blog obviously is a website) is just being pointlessly, ridiculously pedantic. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:46, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

From List of fake news websites#Definition:

"Fake news websites deliberately publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic inflamed by social media. These sites are distinguished from news satire (which is humorous) as they mislead and profit from readers' gullibility. While most fake news sites are portrayed to be spinoffs of other news sites, some of these websites are examples of website spoofing, structured to make visitors believe they are visiting trusted sources like ABC News or MSNBC. The New York Times pointed out that within a strict definition, "fake news" on the Internet referred to a fictitious article which was fabricated with the deliberate motivation to defraud readers, generally with the goal of profiting through clickbait. PolitiFact described fake news as fabricated content designed to fool readers and subsequently made viral through the Internet to crowds that increase its dissemination." --Guy Macon (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

If you are using the definition provided by the article, then it seems your point in response to me above is moot: a site need not pretend to be a legitimate news website (such as CNN.com), a phenomenon described and defined as website spoofing above. Indeed, that definition says nothing about deception except in the context of the stories themselves. So I believe that your point about the site deceiving the reader into thinking it is a legitimate news site is irrelevant to whether it is a fake news site generally speaking, and only (if very) relevant to what kind of fake news site it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:39, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe that you are mistaken (I know, there has to be a first time...) :). A spoof website is a website that appears to be an actual site like CNN or ABC news. Those tend to not last long because they get taken down for trademark violations. A fake news website includes those, but also includes websites that say that they are WQGZ TV in Detroit or the San Diego Post-Dispatch - a TV station and a newspaper that do not actually exist. those are all, in the words of the definition, "fictitious articles which were fabricated with the deliberate motivation to defraud readers" A blog that say things that are untrue with zero attempt to masquerade as a legitimate news source does not fit the definition. And if we do include blogs that say things that are untrue with zero attempt to masquerade as a legitimate news source, then this list will easily exceed 100,000 items. Limit this to blogs that say things that are untrue that also have significant coverage in multiple sources and the list will still contain hundreds of entries. And where would a reader then go to find out if the website they are reading is a fake that looks like a newspaper or TV station? --Guy Macon (talk) 14:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I'm responding mostly to your edit summary, as I'm under about a 45 second time constraint. I'll re-read your comment later, but the last line leads me to believe that the edit sum is a good summary of your comment.

Okay, I agree that all blogs that make false claims should not be included (I think everyone except a hard solipsist with an LSD habit would). But I'm seeing a distinction between a run-of-the-mill bullshit blog and this site. This site focuses on news and events. It has a section called "news" and its articles are structured and written like news stories (albeit shot full of commentary). I mean, right in the title bar is a large link to "News" which -to any credulous reader- produces a bunch of articles that look like news. So I think the matter of contention is actually whether or not they're purporting to be a news site. I think they are, while leaving enough blog-like format to be able to plead "But I'm a blog!" when they don't think "LIBTARD MEDIA, RAWR!!!!" will be an effective response to criticism. Possibly, they have no desire to structure their site like typical news websites, and prefer the more blog-like look. It's not like there's any lack of people more willing to trust a blogger than a reporter out there, especially (these days) on the political right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree with most others that we should certainly keep this, citing New York magazine and CBS News, which both expressly identify this website as a fake news site. (I've replaced the existing cites with those, since nobody seems to contest that they were better than what we had before in terms of cleanly verifying the content). The "Blog vs. Website" distinction is silly. Neutrality^talk 14:03, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

---

References

Activist Post

More low-quality sourcing. The usnews citation[6] simply reports what an unreliable source ( http://www.fakenewswatch.com/ ) says are Fake/Hoax News sites, Satire websites, and Clickbait websites -- and Activist Post isn't even in the Fake/Hoax News sites column on that page. The actual Activist Post website is clearly another blog. This page is not "List of blogs that contain false information" nor should it be. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:46, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• Reliable. The reliability of the US News source was central to this RfC about InfoWars, where your exact argument was made and rejected. Among the closer's comments: WP:RS refer to InfoWars as a "fake news" site and the judgment of WP editors can't be substituted for the judgment of RS, even though this judgment may or may not be entirely correct. Transcluding my argument for US News from there to here: It's not clear that U.S. News only lists Activist Post because it's on the list created by fakenewswatch.com, and to the extent that that's why US News included them, it's safe to assume that U.S. News vetted fakenewswatch.com and deemed it reliable. Similar points have been made about this source by other editors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

• You just took an RfC comment about a completely different entry ("We have multiple reliable sources identifying it as fake news") that the closer commented on and attempted to apply it to an entry that has no reliable sources identifying it as fake news. Furthermore, the result of that RfC was "No consensus", which means that neither side was "rejected", and most of the comments in that RfC made supporting the use of US News' reposting of the Fake News Watch material were posted by one Dr. Fleischman. Show me the multiple reliable sources identifying Activist Post as fake news. So far you haven't shown me even one. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

The US News source, for the reasons I provided and those provided by others on this talk page (including in this discussion). I haven't bothered looking for more. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:17, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep in the list As US News is a reliable source. And please stop with the "the reliable source cited someone I don't like, therefore is untrustworthy" mental gymnastics. It's not going to fly. The US news source is reliable, and sufficient. Fyddlestix (talk) 13:06, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
• If there is a source which we would consider generally unreliable, but it gets picked up by generally reliable third-party publications, then we can consider those pick-ups (and only those pick-ups) to be reliable. It is presumed that generally reliable third party sources will have vetted that information before repeating it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion of Infowars.com

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.

---

While I couldn't defend Infowars as a fact-based, reputable news source, it's certainly different than all the other sites listed here. Don't mistake this for support of the website, it just feels incongruent. Perhaps my own criteria for "fake news" includes an effort to deceive, I assume most people wouldn't mistake infowars for their local network station - they appeal to their audience. If 'Fake News Websites' is intended to be a collection of all sites which have a history of publishing hyperbolic and unfounded reports, the list should be 10x as long. I read it as websites appearing to be legitimate 'channel 5 news' sources, which are actually just produced for clickbait. 47.41.150.4 (talk) 06:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)HowDoISignThisIfIDontHaveAnAccount?

You may have noticed that I am going through the list from top to bottom, fixing sourcing problems. Although of course nothing stops you from discussing this now, I am not going to participate until I get to that part of the list. I will eventually reach Infowars and give it a full analysis, which will include applying Wikipedia sourcing policies, studying the comments in the archives for this talk page about it, and discussing it on the reliable sources noticeboard if needed.

Your comment "If 'Fake News Websites' is intended to be a collection of all sites which have a history of publishing hyperbolic and unfounded reports, the list should be 10x as long. I read it as websites appearing to be legitimate 'channel 5 news' sources" was, in my opinion, spot on. A collection of all sites which have a history of publishing hyperbolic and unfounded reports? Do we have room for 10,000 entries? --Guy Macon (talk) 11:54, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

This is truly straw man on top of straw man on top of straw man. I don't believe anyone has proposed using that inclusion criterion; no one is in favor of including 10x as many entries; and no one is in favor of having 550 entries, let alone 10,000. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 19:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I would of course oppose any attempts to remove Infowars from the list. The fact that definitions vary is important (and can be dealt with a narrative at the top of the list) but a number of reliable sources identify it expressly as fake news, and we should follow those sources. Neutrality^talk 14:01, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

• Keep. This has already been the subject of numerous discussions, including a very contentious RfC, and there has never been consensus to remove InfoWars from the list. I see no reason why we would obtain such a consensus now. I favor listing InfoWars as fake news because reliable sources say it's fake news. That's pretty much the starting point and ending point of my analysis. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Past discussions have decided that infowars addition is appropriate. One editor does not get to appoint themselves as some sort of Grand Reviewer, and I again suggest that Guy Macon's gutting of this article should be reversed, pending review. ValarianB (talk) 18:42, 25 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.

Inclusion of the classification from Zimdar's list

In trying to response to points above, one of things that I see being an issue is that, working on the assumption that an RS calls a site "fake news" and not questioning that approach, that the "fake news" meaning has several different facets that do cover all RS uses of the term. It's being used synonymously with "misinformation sites" which would include "true" fake news (the Eastern European sites from pre-election), but would also include sites that are clickbait, satire (Which I know is pushed to another page), conspiracy theory sites, etc. That's a rather broad brush stroke to put under "fake news" given the stigma that labeling a site as "fake news" does.

I know Zimdar's list is a point of contention to a degree (though the fact Harvard Library links to it, among other RSes, suggests it has importance). But a key element of the list is that it classifies sites among several categories , "fake news" (this being the pre-election fake news site definition), "bias", "clickbait", etc. I think it would help a lot with the perceived issues on this page if this classification was discussed in the lede-up, and used as a column in the list.

This would make it clear there's a broad meaning of what "fake news" is, and thus would cover most of the bases of when RS use the term, and then would make it clear how a site is classified under that. For example, Infowars is clearly misinformation, but it's not deceitful misinformation as Zimdar's "fake news" category is; hence it is classified there as a conspiracy theory website, which more accurate and less problematic to me.

Note that I don't think we can base inclusion on this page just because a site is on Zimdar's list (it's thousands of entries long), but definitely could be used for classification once a site has been deemed appropriate for inclusion. --MASEM (t) 20:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I honestly don't understand your proposal. I'm all for clarifying our inclusion criteria. You're suggesting that we use Zimdar's list as a reliable source in the #Definition section to distinguish between fake news and other types of misinformation? Remember that the list was self-published. I have major doubts about citing it in our article. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Masem, accepting for the sake of argument that Zimdars is a reliable source (which it isn't), and ignoring the fact that many headline writers (and Wikipedia!) falsely call it "Zimdars' fake news list" despite the fact that Zimdars herself calls it "False, Misleading, Clickbait-y, and/or Satirical 'News' Sources", Zimdars categorizes websites into the following categories:[7]

• Fake News (tag fake): Sources that entirely fabricate information, disseminate deceptive content, or grossly distort actual news reports.
• Satire (tag satire): Sources that use humor, irony, exaggeration, ridicule, and false information to comment on current events.
• Extreme Bias (tag bias): Sources that come from a particular point of view and may rely on propaganda, decontextualized information, and opinions distorted as facts.
• Conspiracy Theory (tag conspiracy): Sources that are well-known promoters of kooky conspiracy theories. Ex: 9/11 conspiracies, chem-trails, lizzard people, birther, flat earth, flouride, vaccines as mind control etc.
• Rumor Mill (tag rumor): Sources that traffic in rumors, gossip, innuendo, and unverified claims.
• State News (tag state): Sources in repressive states operating under government sanction.
• Junk Science (tag junksci): Sources that promote pseudoscience, metaphysics, naturalistic fallacies, and other scientifically dubious claims.
• Hate News (tag hate): Sources that actively promote racism, misogyny, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination.
• Clickbait (tag clickbait): Sources that provide generally credible content, but use exaggerated, misleading, OR questionable headlines, social media descriptions, and/or images. These sources may also use sensational language to generate interest, clickthroughs, and shares, but their content is typically verifiable.
• Proceed With Caution (tag unreliable): Sources that may be reliable but whose contents require further verification or to be read in conjunction with other sources.
• Political (tag political): Sources that provide generally verifiable information in support of certain points of view or political orientations.
• Credible (tag reliable): Sources that circulate news and information in a manner consistent with traditional and ethical practices in journalism (Remember: even credible sources sometimes rely on clickbait-style headlines or occasionally make mistakes. No news organization is perfect, which is why a healthy news diet consists of multiple sources of information).
• Unknown (tag unidentified): Sources that have not yet been analyzed (many of these were suggested by readers/users or are found on other lists and resources).

Perhaps we might want to create lists for some of those categories, as we have for fake news and satire?

Zimdars agrees with my evaluation of ABCnews.com.co, labeling it "fake", but she lists 9 of the pages on our list as not being fake:

• celebtricity.com = satire
• disclose.tv = satire, conspiracy
• huzlers.com = satire
• infowars.com = conspiracy
• naturalnews.com = junksci, conspiracy
• redflagnews.com = bias, conspiracy, unreliable
• stuppid.com = satire
• worldtruth.tv = conspiracy, junksci
• yournewswire.com = clickbait, junksci

In case anyone thinks that she doesn't double-list or triple-list websites that she calls "fake", she does:

• clashdaily.com = fake, conspiracy, bias
• extraclubmagazine.com = bias, clickbait, fake
• infostormer.com = fake, hate, conspiracy
• weeklyworldnews.com = fake, rumor, clickbait

--Guy Macon (talk) 00:19, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

• I'm on board with sorting this list in a similar way, but you're running up against different places using the word "fake" in different ways, and using that to imply some substantial disagreement which doesn't appear to actually exist. Conspiracy theories are (for the most part) fake in the normal sense of the word. They're only not fake when one is using "fake" to specifically refer to fake news a la ABCnews.com.co. I also find your assertion that Zimdar is not a reliable source to be quite arguable, though I haven't mentioned this before now. I've seen your argument, and it's just not any more convincing than the argument in favor. When I then look at the source itself (the list), and find that it generally matches with my own analysis, I tend to suspect Zimdar is, actually, an RS. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:22, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth, but I think some editors might be suggesting in a roundabout way that we remove items from our list that aren't categorized as "fake news" in Zimdars' list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:20, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MjolnirPants, As you know, I respect your intelligence and wisdom and tend to come to the same conclusions that you do on many things, but in this case I really do think that you have reached an incorrect conclusion. Please consider our guideline at WP:SCHOLARSHIP:

"Articles should rely on secondary sources whenever possible. For example, a review article, monograph, or textbook is better than a primary research paper."

Zimdar[8] is a primary source, and she does not list any sources for her list. The few details she gives on how she decided whether to include a site on the list basically boil down to "I know it when I see it".

Zimdars' list has not been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal, but rather was published by providing a link to a Google Docs page. Google Docs lets anyone put pretty much anything up that isn't actually illegal. To her credit, she never claimed that it was a published research paper, saying "I am an assistant professor of communication & media, and this resource started as a tool for teaching my students about journalism/social media/media literacy. All of the contents in this document reflect the opinion of the author(s) and are for educational purposes only."

"Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses."

No reputable peer-reviewed source has vetted Zimdars' list. Instead it has been talked about in the popular press, most of which are reports based upon the original Los Angeles Times coverage. I would also note that Zimdars has repudiated the list published by the LA Times and reproduced on Wikipedia, saying that it was a handout to her students and was not meant for publication. She has since self-published a new, highly modified list[9] with a completely different set of categories and sites. This new, updated list has received zero coverage by any source.

Therefore, based upon the above and upon years of evaluating claims made by academics, I must conclude that Zimdars list is not a reliable source. That doesn't mean that she is wrong. Like you, I have also spot checked some of the 1,000+ sites on her current list and find that it generally matches with my own analysis. But that is my original research and thus not usable on Wikipedia. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I had recalled Zimdar having published on this matter before and was going to cite WP:SPS as not being contradicted by WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but when I searched to find the publication, I found nothing but thanks extended to her as a research assistant in a peer-reviewed article on fake news that preceded this list. I suspect that she is a de facto expert still, but as there's no way to definitively establish that, I'll not argue the point. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Why is there an assumption that fake news websites is a subject for which RS should be restricted to "scholarship"? Yes, peer reviewed scholarly sources written by accomplished academics would be ideal. We do have a lot of notable subjects, however, that are notable because of coverage in other kinds of sources. For a huge variety of purposes, we consider sources like ABC News, US News and World Reports, etc. to be reliable sources -- there's editorial oversight and a decent reputation involved. I don't think anybody is saying we should be citing the google doc, but that if we are to use Zimdars' material, it should be filtered through these journalistic outlets. I do see that there is a problem where one of those sources says she called something fake news when she did not actually call it fake news. I'd be inclined to remove those unless it seems the source using the claim is using their own judgment rather than misquoting. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:14, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

In the case of my response to Guy (in which I forgot to mention that the respect he referenced was mutual), I agree with you in that I don't think this is something that needs peer-reviewed scholarship. But it does need reliable sources, and Zimdar's actively maintained list doesn't meet the criteria. That being said, we can still use the original (lower quality) list, because as I mentioned earlier; the presumption that all the RSes who presented that list had vetted it before doing so. I would suggest using it as a guideline for how to organize and structure our list (rather than simply repeating it here), but not as a source to say any particular site is fake news (we can use statements outside of the list from RSes who mention or republish the list, of course). Mostly, I think this because the list is quite obviously contentious, and we have plenty of RSes to populate a list of fake news sites without borrowing entries directly from Zimdar. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:36, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

American News

Once again we have an entry with extremely poor-quality sourcing.

The first citation[10] has two problems. First, it does not actually call American News "fake". Second, it simply reports what the unreliable source http://www.fakenewswatch.com/ says, a site which uses as its sources other unreliable sources such as [ http://www.fortliberty.org/ ] and [ http://rationalwiki.org/ ].

The second citation[11] does not actually talk about any website. It only talks about facebook pages that spread fake news. If we are to include Facebook pages that spread fake news the entry should be labeled "Facebook".

The third citation[12] is mostly about facebook posts, but if you are in an "I am looking for any reason to include the entry" frame of mind it could be read as also calling some websites fake.

Conclusion; the entry stays based upon the one reliable secondary source that sort of calls it fake, and the two citations that fail to support whet they are being cited for have been removed. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:02, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

First, it does not actually call American News "fake". -- It is under "Here are several fake news sites that have become popular on Facebook, and which should be avoided if you're looking for the facts:" (??)

it simply reports what the unreliable source http://www.fakenewswatch.com/ says -- This is about the reliability of US News & World Report. They have their own editorial staff and processes before posting something, even if fakenewswatch.com itself is problematic. The question isn't is fakenewswatch.com a good enough source, but is US News and World Report a good enough source. In this context, I'm undecided.

The second citation[13] does not actually talk about any website. - To read this, of course, one would think the article doesn't even mention American News, rather than it spending a few short paragraphs on it and how it runs a whole bunch of stories that aren't true. "Nothing about the post is true, but that didn’t seem to matter to American News [...] American News, which on Tuesday posted stories like [...] None of those stories are true. But American News is nowhere near the lone source behind the intentionally fake news that took over Facebook in the last 48 hours." -- This doesn't seem like it requires a stretch. There's the meaning of "fake news," talking about American News in the same terms, then grouping it with other sources "behind ... fake news that took over Facebook." If we are to include Facebook pages that spread fake news the entry should be labeled "Facebook" - is obviously misleading.

And of course it's listed as "fake news" in the Zimdars list that has been republished, and has even been cited as an example of the fake news subset of that list. And there are sources like Miami New Times and Buzzfeed. MNT: "According to a BuzzFeed News investigation, two dudes are cranking out totally false headlines from a house in Miami as part of a huge bipartisan #FakeNews operation. [...] the term "fake news" has gone from a very specific descriptor for fully madeup information to a term that conservatives and alt-righters use to discredit information they don't like. But according to BuzzFeed, the Miami company American News LLC is spouting some real-deal phony facts on both ends of the political spectrum". — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:51, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my evaluation of the sources I removed. If you have better sources than the poor-quality sources that I removed, you should put those sources in the article. Furthermore, you know which entry I am going to evaluate next, so you could save us both a lot of effort by improving the sourcing on that next entry before I evaluate it. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

So, in other words, you're blowing off my response and expressing your intent to continue removing content without finding consensus to do so, based on contentious evaluations that you intend to continue applying? Don't you think it would be more productive to put energy into the inclusion criteria discussions rather than proceeding with your own? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:59, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't need your consent to apply Wikipedia's policies and guidelines regarding sourcing.

I am not engaging with you because I already knew before I read your reply that you were going to take a source that talks about a facebook post with "American News" at the bottom of it and count it as if it the source was talking about the American News website. I also already knew that you were going to revert my removal of that source, and I know that nothing I can possibly say will change your mind. Thus I have nothing to say to you or to Dr. Fleischman, because I already know exactly what the responses will be.

Now if someone who I believe actually want this list to be supported by high-quality sources (MjolnirPants and Masem come to mind) makes a comment, I will be glad to engage in a discussion with them, based upon my belief that in such a discussion I might be persuaded that I am wrong and based upon my belief that in such a discussion MjolnirPants or Masem might be persuaded that they are wrong. I see no point in a discussion with someone who I believe will never be persuaded that they are wrong.

I fully intend to WP:BOLDLY evaluate the sources used in this article and to the best of my ability remove those that are do not support the claims that they are cited as supporting. I may, after I finish evaluating all of the sources, bring this up at an appropriate noticeboard or RfC. Go ahead and do what you think you have to do, but don't expect me to engage in a pointless debate with you every time you do it. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:05, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Guy, in case you haven't noticed, you are getting nowhere here with this sort of tendentious editing. If you really want to make lasting changes that reflect your POV I suggest you take a fresh look at your edits on this page, especially in this thread, and consider working more collaboratively with your fellow contributors. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 04:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your unsolicited advice. Here is some free advice for you; spend more time improving the sourcing on the article and less time ordering me to stop dealing with the existing, low quality sourcing. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

After reverting and restoring the two low-quality sources I listed above, Rhododendrites added two more. Here is my evaluation of these additional sources:

The first added citation to Miami New Times[14] is excellent. It is a reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, the source gives significant coverage of American News, not just a mention in passing, It actually talks about American News instead of merely noting that unreliable source Fake News Watch listed it, and it talks about the American News website, not just the facebook posts. This citation alone is more than sufficient to list American News, and in fact could be used to support listing all four closely-related sites covered in the source (Liberal Society, Conservative 101, American News, and God Today). Good work by Rhododendrites.

The second added citation is to Buzzfeed news. Before starting to work on this page I brought Buzzfeed news up at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Reliable sources for fake news?. The consensus was:

"We've had a lot of discussions about Buzzfeed lately, most of which tend to agree that its reputation has improved and that some parts of it can be used (although not the listicles.) See eg. here, or here (which touches on their efforts to change its culture.) That obviously doesn't make it a top-tier source, but it's not nuke-on-sight, and it can be a good source for "Internet drama" specifically (which, nowadays, sometimes does rise to the level of news we have to cover.)"

Like the previous newly-added source, the Buzzfeed source actually call American News "fake news" which is a big improvement over some of the other sources used in this list. All-in-all, I rate this as an reasonably good source, especially considering that the higher-quality Miami New Times source I evaluated above cites it.

An interesting side issue, based upon the complaints by multiple editors that this list is biased towards listing conservative fake news sites and ommiting liberal fake news sites, is that fact that the Buzzfeed article lists 'five fake news sites; Liberal Society, Conservative 101, Democratic Review, American News, and God Today. All except for Democratic Review are also covered by the Miami New Times source.

Based upon my elevation above, I am going to once again remove the two low quality sources I removed before, this time because five refs are too many and because we don't need them now that we have better sources, and I am going to add entries for Liberal Society and Conservative 101. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I disagree with the whole "low-quality sources" thing, but I will not revert purely per WP:CITEKILL. That said, it's clear we have a solid consensus that the US News source is reliable, so if you remove it yet again based on reliability grounds then personally I'd consider it edit warring against consensus. You have already crossed the line into disruptive editing, in my opinion. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I gave my reason for removal ("five refs are too many and because we don't need them now that we have better sources") and you just agreed with it, yet here you are, arguing against a reason for removal that I didn't give. And all of this from the editor who has made multiple false "straw man" accusations. Clearly at this point you are trying to make this page a WP:BATTLEGROUND, so I am going to do my best to not interact with you any further. Feel free to report me at WP:ANI if you think I am being disruptive, but be aware of WP:BOOMERANG. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

https://www.10news.one — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:6000:C083:8400:8FB:622A:2DF5:64EE (talk) 04:40, 4 June 2017 (UTC)