Talk:Fake news

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): GutmKate (article contribs).

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amillard (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Amillard. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dkkarner (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Dkkarner. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Psconway (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Addisonmmccormick, Cameron Rumley. This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): ZaneNorris15 (article contribs). This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Dwang0821.

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kcallahan01 (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 10 January 2019 and 30 April 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Alexyoung1999 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Chickels84. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 January 2019 and 6 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Taliazapata (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2019 and 1 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Henry Guan, Siddkumaran, Erikay677 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hannahdobrott, Cxndyoh, CanKaya1, Angelacaooo, Nicgonzie.

legitimate news not defined

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

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

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request on April 3 2019

The subject of fake news in Saudi Arabia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Twitter blocks French government with its own fake news law

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

Russian Invasion of Estonia Hoax?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump and Putin discuss Fake News at G-20

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Valid contributions to the Fake News wiki article involving world leaders from a wiki RS... Why not??? WP:NOTNEWS opposition seems like opposition opinion editing and suppression of valid factual content. So... 174.150.200.144 ([[User talk:174

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