Talk:List of fake news websites

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)

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)

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

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

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 [1]) 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)

What is wrong with being a white nationalist? Do you have a problem with Jewish nationalists, and if you do, wouldn't that make you an anti-Semite? If you are then against white nationalists, doesn't that make you anti-white, and thus racist? 47.137.191.83 (talk) 16:48, 16 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)

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)

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)