Talk:Fake news website

Screenshot

This is a great article. It really needs an example image of some fake news website to document the problem - this would be acceptable under fair use. Any suggestions for a really blatantly false story? I looked for "Pope Endorses Trump" pages but they all seem to have been deleted now their purpose has passed. Blythwood (talk) 08:26, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that someone has added a screenshot of endingthefed.com. I don't think it's accurate to say it's a valid fair use claim to take any example of a site listed as a fake news site. It would need to be the subject of critical commentary in the article. To that end I grabbed PolitiFact's screenshot of 70news, which is explicitly covered in this article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 15:27, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It's preferable to have all images on the page be under a free use license. Sagecandor (talk) 18:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I uploaded this screenshot from realtruenews. ^Falling_Gravity 19:21, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Free is preferable indeed, but screenshots typically don't work that way. :) Except, of course, when there's nothing copyrightable (as is probably the case with this Realtruenews screenshot, which is just text, not laid out particularly creatively). When it's just text, however, it's unclear how much it adds in terms of illustrating the subject (unless it's e.g. a logo of a company in an article about the company). More options is better, and it doesn't hurt to have, but it looks like Realtruenews is another that we don't talk about at all in the article. That matters for non-free rationales, but also just insofar as images connect to the text. Also, the subject is just as much the fake news stories as it is the sites, which is why the 70news screenshot seemed ideal (mentioned in the text, well covered by sources, displays the site along with a well-known headline). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:00, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Realtruenews was covered here when some online communities passed a fake Hillary speech transcript as a real one. Additionally, the screenshot contains the admission "Everything on RealTrueNews Was A LIE", illustrating the article's subject. Maybe it could use some more cropping, though, to focus on that text. ^Falling_Gravity 22:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much to user:FallingGravity for the suggestion. Replaced the fair-use-asserted picture with the Free-Use-Licensed picture. Sagecandor (talk) 23:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity:Thanks for that valuable source. I've added it to the article. Look good? Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. The free option doesn't automatically take precedence if it doesn't actually serve to illustrate the subject. You've replaced an illustration of the subject via an actual fake news story headline that has received extensive coverage such that it's representative of what the entire article is about... with an image of a header we could just as easily describe in article text (i.e. the caption says everything the image says -- very little is actually illustrated). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:31, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say I agree here with the suggestion by FallingGravity and I think we should try to have the entire article be Free-Use-Licensed-Pictures-Only, if at all possible. Sagecandor (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: You didn't reply to anything I said. Being free isn't sufficient justification. It needs to be free and actually illustrate the subject. Non-free is perfectly acceptable if you cannot otherwise illustrate the subject that way. Again, you've removed an illustration of a well-covered fake news story in a fake news site with text taken from a site intended to mock fake news sites. If a huge caption that makes the image redundant is necessary, it's not the best way to illustrate the subject. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:37, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I gotta go with the recommendation by FallingGravity on this one — this is a website that was actually reported by a major media source, The Kelly File on FOX News, as if it were completely a factual source. That is remarkable. And unique for this particular fake news website, where the other story was a high Google search result, but was not falsely picked up by a major news outlet as factual. That is a major feat. Sagecandor (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

It's funny cause the contents of this website were supposed to be so obviously fake that no one could possibly accept it as true. A similar thing happened the same month, though I don't think that's within the scope of this article. Another thing I might add is that the "Everything on RealTrueNews Was A LIE" message was only recently added to the site. ^Falling_Gravity 00:27, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

As comment, I think the 70news screenshot is worth having. It's good to have a specific example of a specific fake news website making a specific fake story that we can show to people a case study. Blythwood (talk) 07:57, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, Blythwood, and I like where you added it to the article in that location. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 08:28, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I still say the Realtruenews screenshot is a terrible one to lead with. That's not to say it shouldn't be anywhere, but we start off saying "it's distinct from satire" and then show a picture of a site "intended to show reader gullibility" that's pointing out its own lies. I still say it doesn't actually illustrate anything, and seems contrary to the entire lead it accompanies. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:20, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I dunno about that -- because in one picture we have represented the idea of being labelled as "news" and also pointing out to the reader it is a "lie" on the same picture. Seems to be a basic summary of the whole idea right there in one image. Sagecandor (talk) 15:02, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Now replaced with template {{Computer security}}, which has links to many relevant topics in this article. Sagecandor (talk) 16:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Criticism

This article urgently needs a criticism section. The unfortunately named propornot site is analysed by one of its targets at Nakedcapitalism.

An echo chamber for The Washington Post? The irony! Shtove (talk) 14:18, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Suggested source fails WP:Identifying reliable sources as it appears to be someone's personal blog that calls itself admittedly "commentary" with no editorial review. Sagecandor (talk) 17:06, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if a "criticism section" is appropriate here (it's just the criticism of one group), but here's some better sources: The Intercept, Fortune. This information should be added per WP:WEIGHT. ^Falling_Gravity 17:14, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, FallingGravity, those are better sources. Added new highly critical content from both sources to this article. Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The article still does a lot to promote PropOrNot, despite this new section. For example, Footnote A includes three sources that mostly parrot the Post's report rather than look into the matter themselves. ^Falling_Gravity 17:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point about the footnote, fixed it with attribution to the secondary sources that describe it. Sagecandor (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I didn't make this clear, but my problem with the footnote is that it ignores the criticisms of PropOrNot and instead focuses on WaPo's favorable coverage, violating WP:DUEWEIGHT. ^Falling_Gravity 18:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Valid suggestion, thank you. Added that info into the Footnote as well. Sagecandor (talk) 19:00, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

This term/article definitely needs a criticism section, as I've seen almost nothing but regarding this newspeak. With that said, I don't think PropOrNot should be cited, as it cannot be independently verified, and may very well be 'Fake News' itself. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:45, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree that we should not cite PropOrNot, and we don't, we stick to WP:SECONDARY sources only. Disagree about having a "criticism" section, per discussion we already had about this, above in this section itself. Sagecandor (talk) 19:46, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any reason given for why a criticism section should be excluded gleaning from the above statements. I continue to endorse a 'criticism' section, and will push for one on this page, hopefully going to a vote. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:48, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I hear you and your opinions are valid and important. However we've already in response directly to suggestions in this section, incorporated "criticism", directly into the article content itself. Sagecandor (talk) 19:50, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What would a criticism section even look like? Fake news is easy to criticize because it's fake. ^Falling_Gravity 20:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree here with FallingGravity. Separate sections for such things are discouraged, per "Avoid sections and articles focusing on criticisms or controversies". Sagecandor (talk) 20:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Disagree - this is a new article on a controversial subject and is being heavily edited by an editor who has little track record on wikipedia, although with much skill. A criticism section is appropriate, and as the concept of this article becomes clear that section may be distributed into the main text. Shtove (talk) 20:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

What else would you like to incorporate that is "criticism" into the main text? Sagecandor (talk) :56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

No idea - editors will work it out over time. I expect this article will be deleted as a piece of crystal-ballery.Shtove (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Some of this can be mentioned but there's no reason to repost Ingram's column here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:37, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Volunteer Marek, for your recent improvements to the article. As you can hopefully see, here on the talk page, my recent edits were in direct response to suggestions, above, to add more "criticism" to the article. I tried to do so by incorporating suggested sources, above. Sagecandor (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Given that the original Washington Post article has even been criticized by the Washington Post, I'm removing the lede content which reference it while preserving the body text. ^Falling_Gravity 04:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay that makes total sense, no problem here. But just to point out the column you linked to is an Opinion piece. Sagecandor (talk) 04:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity:I've added that suggested source to the article body text. Sagecandor (talk) 05:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I have no objections to including it (nor to excluding it) as an opinion, though the claims mostly echo The Intercept, which is already referenced. ^Falling_Gravity 05:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@FallingGravity:New information from two new sources that it was likely a Russian intelligence operation in the style of Trolls from Olgino, see [1] and [2]. Sagecandor (talk) 05:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Removed all references from the article based on any research by the group "PropOrNot" -- hopefully this goes a good way along towards improvements as suggested above in this section. Sagecandor (talk) 01:51, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You've deleted the Rolling Stone article, the Fortune article, and the Intercept article ?! I do not think the solution to bad reporting by the WaPo is to cover up bad reporting by the WaPo at Wikipedia. SashiRolls (talk) 10:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You complain about having PropOrNot in the article. Now you complain about having PropOrNot removed from the article. Difficult to please you. Alright, I added it back to its previously stable section within the chronology of the time line in that section of how events occurred. I will trim down emphasis on PropOrNot and keep in the criticism of PropOrNot in that section. Hopefully this will be satisfactory to you. Sagecandor (talk) 16:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Added back the info that I had removed on PropOrNot, after it was complained about that I had removed it, having previously read complaints, above, that I had added it at all, in the first place. [3] Sagecandor (talk) 16:15, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

This TWP+PropOrNot issue turned into affair and warrants proper section, which I suggests. Not only that, entire paragraph is now so large. Not sure, but it seems to me @Sagecandor: attempted to create section just moments ago, removing entire paragraph there, but other editor restored it to previous state?--Santasa99 (talk) 19:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Santasa99:Please see new article I created at PropOrNot. Sagecandor (talk) 19:11, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Look, @Sagecandor:, it's troubling to have article on something/someone we don't have slightest idea what or who is it. It's happen to be quite controversial for now, as we can see and read online - other people operating in the same line of work, in attempt to distinguish "fake" from "real" news, are very critical of this PropOrNot. It would be less problematic (and probably less contested) if we had decent section on "Fake news website" article, which still doesn't mean we shouldn't, although I don't think the title is appropriate, and then in time separate article. But, OK, if other accept separate "PropOrNot" article at this point, what you put in it looks fine to me.--Santasa99 (talk) 20:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, @Santasa99:, I'm glad you like what I've put in at PropOrNot ! Thank you for your compliment ! Sagecandor (talk) 20:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the propornot article is succinct and balanced. I wonder if propornot will be reintroduced to this article once its analysis is made clear, as an example of how entangling fake news can be.Shtove (talk) 11:52, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I've lobbied for a McCarthyism section. It's interesting how independent critical media have been taken down by the WaPo based on POV studies (from a hawkish neocon think tank, according to Ingram, and a fly-by-night shadowy group of people who, according to Chen don't think it's "cool" to "fuck with the American people."). Seriously, you can't make this stuff up. Given the fact that the WaPo has been listed as an RS this is a bit of an emergency for WP:RSN. Reference to one bit of the criticism in the article "The Propaganda about Russian Propaganda" from the New Yorker should be in the lead (no need for a footnote, as it is (was?) mentioned in the article already...) SashiRolls (talk) 19:18, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

References

I also think this article desperately needs a criticism section. There have been criticisms on this very topic and how its been covered in the media from leftwing and rightwing editorial outlets. 1Eternity1 (talk) 07:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of what? Fake news websites? Macedonian teenagers that create fake news websites? Clickbait profiteers that create fake news websites? That they exist is not in dispute. Examples include ABCnews.com.co and National Report. So yes, it is a good thing to have criticism of those types of fake news websites. And that is already integrated directly into the article throughout. Sagecandor (talk) 07:47, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Criticism of the media's coverage and focus on this topic. Honestly, this whole page needs to be reorganized and should include a section on the history of propaganda and yellow journalism. 1Eternity1 (talk) 07:54, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is about fake news websites. This article is not about "media coverage". As you note in your links, both history of propaganda and yellow journalism already have separate existing articles on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 08:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The only notable aspect of this topic is the media coverage of fake news websites. Otherwise, it's a POV fork that synthesizes information from hoaxes, propaganda and yellow journalism under one page and includes Russian conspiracy theories. Fake news isn't new. 1Eternity1 (talk) 08:29, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Citations in introduction of Fake news website

@Crossswords:, thank you for your interest in Fake news website !

Previously every single sentence in the introduction was cited with a citation.

But Epicgenius moved those citations out of the introduction.

This conforms with WP:CITELEAD.

Everything is cited lower down in the body text of the article.

Hope that explains it okay !

Sagecandor (talk) 04:56, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Previous version had citations for every single sentence in lead section, then removed by Epicgenius who cited the page WP:CITELEAD with this edit [4]. Sagecandor (talk) 04:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

And again by Crossswords (talk · contribs) at [5]. User also appears to be engaging in subtle vandalism by removing mentions of Russia. Sagecandor (talk) 05:08, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

what has a single country to do with anything for it to deserve its own links below? And if you did it before why not making it back to it again? And it doesnt conform with CITELEAD at all, you dont see any article written this way unless its extremely short where the introductions are so short that it is next to the sources.--Crossswords (talk) 05:17, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

You are incorrect on all points. The article explains in detail the particular importance of Russia. Moreover, citations are often omitted in the lead when the content is sourced in the body. Neutrality^talk 05:19, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see [6], temporarily added back all citations to the introduction section pending further discussion. Due to the topic of this article being contentious perhaps by those representing the Russian government, might be best to keep in all the citations in the introduction section to avoid such complaints in the future? Sagecandor (talk) 05:23, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me. Neutrality^talk 05:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 05:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The citations are explicitly not needed in the intro as per WP:LEADCITE, unless the exact statement in the lead is extremely controversial. Moreover, I don't see why {{citation needed}} ever needs to be added to the lead. If the information is not sourced to the body, {{citation needed (lead)}} should be used. Otherwise, the citations in the lead is redundant, given that the lead is supposed to be a summary for the rest of the article (and thus doesn't need a citation). epicgenius (talk) 18:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I see where the problem is, now. In the lead, I think that only the statement about Russia should be cited. The rest of the lead is already explained in detail in the body section. epicgenius (talk) 18:47, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CITELEAD says: "The verifiability policy advises that material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and direct quotations, should be supported by an inline citation." In this case, unfortunately, due to the incoming interest by Trolls from Olgino, best way to avoid arguing over cites is to keep the cites in the intro. Otherwise we risk drive-by cite tagging again. Sagecandor (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

• Note: I have removed this discussion from Wikipedia:Third opinion because there are now four participants in the discussion. Scolaire (talk) 10:34, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@SashiRolls:Please read this section to see why every single sentence in the lead section now has a citation. Sagecandor (talk) 21:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality, Epicgenius, and Scolaire:Strongly disagree with this edit [7] by SashiRolls done without discussion here. See above discussion of cite-tagging in the intro previously by Crossswords (talk · contribs) for why we should keep all citations in the intro. Sagecandor (talk) 22:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

I have indeed brought the first two paragraphs of the lead in line with NPOV and LEADCITE. If you wish to restore your point of view and add back all sorts of unnecessary blue links, that's up to you... but please wait 24 hours before reverting anything. Others should feel free to continue cleaning up the article which is -- I agree -- quite biased. A systemic bias tag could also be added in the meantime. SashiRolls (talk) 22:33, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

We should keep all citations in the intro because of this [8]. Sagecandor (talk) 22:35, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Article is way slanted to the US 2016 election and Russia(?)

Are Wikipedia editors biased against Russia or is it just the "reliable sources"? And why does every image have to be related to Russia or the US?

It's clear from the images in the current vision of the article that something (or someone) is going on with the "fake news" phenomenon.

1) Image says "Standing For America Until They Shut Us Down Or We Take It Back"

2) "European Union parliamentary Committee on Foreign Affairs drew greater attention to the problem — when it passed a resolution in November 2016, condemning: "pseudo-news agencies ... social media and internet trolls" used by Russia."

3) "The United States Department of State spent 8 months creating a unit to counter Russian disinformation campaigns against the U.S. before scrapping their own program in September 2015."

4) This one has the least connectction to the USA or Russia, even then the section this picture is for claims that a BuzzFeed "investigation" found "100 websites spreading fraudulent articles supportive of Donald Trump were created by teenagers in the town of Veles, Macedonia."

5) The Swedish Security Service issued a report in 2015 identifying propaganda from Russia had the goal to "create splits in society."

6) U.S. President Barack Obama said, "If we can't discriminate between serious arguments and propaganda, then we have problems."

7) "A screenshot of a fake news story, falsely claiming Donald Trump won the popular vote in the 2016 United States presidential election."

8) "Google CEO Sundar Pichai has said there should be "no situation where fake news gets distributed" and that it is possible fake news had some effect on the 2016 election. "

9) "Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg specifically recommended fact-checking website Snopes.com as a way to respond to fraudulent news on Facebook." (Both are American companies, section mentions 2016 election)

10) "Fact-checking website PolitiFact.com was praised by rival fact-checking service FactCheck.org and recommended as a resource for readers to check before sharing a potentially fake story." (Don't they only "fact check" American politics?)

11) The section this picture is for says "Zeynep Tufekci wrote critically about Facebook's stance on fraudulent news sites in a piece for The New York Times, pointing out fraudulent websites in Macedonia profited handsomely off false stories about the 2016 U.S. election"

12) "Samantha Bee went to Russia for her television show Full Frontal and met with individuals financed by the government of Russia to act as Internet trolls and attempt to manipulate the 2016 U.S. election in order to subvert democracy." Emily Goldstein (talk) 14:06, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The article reflects the weight given to the issues in over 100 secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 14:27, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The best way to fix is to add more sources. (; ^Falling_Gravity 05:56, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Currently the word "Russia" appears 121 times in the article. If editors want to rely on US media hyperbole and US intelligence service allegations to create an collaborative opinion piece called "Evil Russian plots to ruin the 2016 US election" and present it as a balanced encyclopedia article about veracity in news reporting and the purported sudden appearance of "fake news", they could at least try to be honest about what they are doing rather than hiding behind the old lame excuse of "it's what the sources [I've chosen to cherry-pick] all say". As the Taibbi piece about the joke Washington Post article points out, conspiracy theorising comes from all sides these days. N-HH talk/edits 08:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

There were complaints, above, that this article was too USA centric. Now it focuses on many different countries. So now there are new complaints that it is too focused on other countries other than USA. In any event, we take our emphasis from the over 100 secondary sources themselves. Sagecandor (talk) 17:01, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The criticisms do not contradict each other. Indeed, rather obviously, they're all part of the same overall point. The entirely consistent complaint, as voiced by multiple other editors and observers, is that this page is predominantly built up of one-sided criticism of *alleged* Russian actions in respect of the US, mostly sourced to US media, and with any countervailing evidence deleted, all masquerading as some kind of neutral examination of the broad, purportedly new phenomenon of "fake news". N-HH talk/edits 21:28, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps that is a wider condemnation of all news media and all reliable secondary sources, but on Wikipedia the sources used are guided by WP:RS. Sagecandor (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

See my point about lame excuses, as in specious appeals to "RS!", and cherry-picking. This is not what all the media say. Thanks. N-HH talk/edits 21:46, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

But it is represented in a significant portion of WP:RS sources, and this article brings together over 100 sources giving multiple different pieces of information about the topic as a whole. Sagecandor (talk) 21:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Russia Today fails as reliable source about Russian propaganda by Russian government

Source Russia Today fails WP:RS as not reliable source about Russian propaganda by Russian government.

Please don't use this source, especially not in this article.

Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 14:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RT is a news station. It may have flaws, but it reported something which appears to contradict claims made by a US comedy programme. It beggars belief that anyone can seriously argue that reports from the latter must be included, while reports from the former must be excised, and more generally that US sources are fine for discussing purported Russian propaganda attacks against the US, but Russian ones responding to such claims are beyond the pale. You also reverted half of my other entirely reasonable minor additions and rephrasings, which were a small attempt to add some balance to the article and avoid it just being stuffed with allegations as if they are all true (for example by removing Zuckerberg's comments – if you objected to the quote being in the lead alongside the Google CEO quote, you could have moved it to where the point was made in the body – and restoring wording that contentious research "confirms" things, although that whole para in the lead was subsequently removed by someone else). As so often on WP, this page is being used to push charges via slanted emphasis and cherry-picked sources rather than to describe a topic neutrally and with balance. And, yes, I know the response is "we're just following the RS". Oh well, if you say so. Have fun with it. N-HH talk/edits 08:16, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Why is RT not reliable? Because your local newspaper says so? What do you mean by "especially not in this article." should we use biased american MSM? DerElektriker (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Russia Today is not reliable because it is an overt Russian propaganda arm by the Russian government. The sources cited in the intro section of the Wikipedia article RT (TV network) make this quite clear. Sagecandor (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

and CBS and BBC are propaganda from the US and UK as they are sponsored by the goverment?--Crossswords (talk) 17:02, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

No, Crossswords, and this false belief has already been explained to you, repeatedly, by Neutrality in great detail. Sagecandor (talk) 17:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

And you haven't addressed the point about why a US comedy show is an unimpeachable source, whose allegations simply have to be included in great detail, when a Russian news source daring to suggest there might be a problem with that show's report is verboten and has to be censored, simply on the basis of your personal declaration to that effect. The brief RT content I added for balance was clearly attributed, and did not assert that it had conclusively debunked the original report. People can read things from both sides and come to their own judgment. And if you can't see the circular reasoning and extensive question-begging involved in your argument as to why X media is OK and Y media is not, please try harder. N-HH talk/edits 21:34, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's focus on Russia Today. Sagecandor (talk) 21:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I did. In case the point is not clear, your argument (often heard on WP) is that RT is not "reliable", especially when it contradicts western media reports, because western media have declared it unreliable. That's as rational and helpful – and as circular an argument – as declaring western media unreliable because RT says so, which it frequently does. I agree RT should always be used with caution, and with awareness of where it is coming from, but then so should all media and indeed any other sources to a greater or lesser degree. As I said, I attributed the RT content. As I also said, it certainly stands on a par here with the US comedy show claims. N-HH talk/edits 21:42, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Casting all reliable secondary sources as unacceptable sources as quote "Western Media" belies a POV. Sagecandor (talk) 21:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Which I didn't do. N-HH talk/edits 21:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

"Russia Today has frequently been called a propaganda outlet for the Russian government and its foreign policy by news reporters, including former RT reporters." -- note that this includes former reporters for Russia Today, itself. Sagecandor (talk) 21:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Yes, I know what WP's page on RT says, and I know what people say about RT (just as I know what people say about other outlets, including former employees of those outlets). I don't necessarily disagree with much of it. But copy-pasting all that here is rather obviously still missing the point of what I said about circular argument and about the potential problems with *any* source. Nor does it address the point that you seem quite happy to justify relying, without even a hint of a question, on a US comedy show's report, and reports from other western media, as well as direct accusations sourced directly to western government agencies on this page. Given that context, you have spectacularly failed to explain, let alone justify, why just one of RT's direct responses to some of the allegations here is beyond the pale. Continually posting irrelevant non-sequiturs isn't helpful, unless your aim is simply obfuscation. No wonder "fake news" gains so much traction when people's critical and logical faculties are so manifestly lacking. N-HH talk/edits 20:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect. Nothing is sourced to a comedy show or to a government source. It is all sourced to secondary sources. Perhaps you may not know the difference between a WP:PRIMARY source and a WP:SECONDARY source? Sagecandor (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Er, there's a whole subsection of claims about Russian "trolls" sourced to Full Frontal with Samantha Bee, which is a news-based comedy show. That's the content this discussion was initially about. There are huge swathes of content citing the direct claims of western intelligence agencies and politicians. I never raised the question of whether or not the sources were primary ones. Feel free to be confused yourself, but don't accuse me of it. N-HH talk/edits 20:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Nope. Not sourced to Full Frontal with Samantha Bee. Read WP:SECONDARY, please. Sagecandor (talk) 20:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the original source of the claims is Full Frontal. That's the show the interviews were with and which made the claims in question. Other outlets have, in turn, simply reported/repeated that "Full Frontal did/said this". This is not hard. Or shouldn't be. And please stop telling me about the difference between primary and secondary sources, whether in WP-land or elsewhere. I know the difference, and it just makes you look patronising on top of everything else. N-HH talk/edits 20:55, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Scorned, former employees are not a reliable source. RT is not propaganda anymore than the BBC is state propaganda for the UK. Solntsa90 (talk) 16:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

There are huge differences between RT and the BBC. RT is state-owned. The BBC is not. RT has been described by various reliable sources as a propaganda outlet. The BBC has not, as far as I know. The BBC is widely cited by other reliable media outlets. RT is not nearly as much. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I think you'll find that RT was one of the very few media (with Al Jazeera & Democracy Now!) to cover the Alabama & national prison strikes on the anniversary of the Attica uprising into their second week... [9] SashiRolls (talk) 19:32, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

@N-HH:Please stop adding Russian propaganda source Russia Today to this article. It may be an okay source about sporting events, but not about reporting about Russian propaganda and Internet trolls paid by the Kremlin, itself. Sagecandor (talk) 15:34, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I do not think RT is a reliable source for anything per our guideline, as it doesn't have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking. On top of that it has been widely and reliably identified as owned by the Russian government, which has a reliably sourced policy of spreading disinformation about subjects far beyond Russia itself. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:21, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, DrFleischman, agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 18:23, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This is merely your invective, and your opinion; RT is as good a source as any. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You can say that but you're not exactly convincing anyone. Perhaps you should explain why you think RT is a reliable source, perhaps drawing from our relevant guideline. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:08, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The burden is on you, Solntsa90, to demonstrate reliability -- it is not up to those challenging its reliability. Neutrality^talk 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You want me to prove that RT is NOT propaganda? How am I supposed to go about proving a negative? Solntsa90 (talk) 21:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

"You are indefinitely banned from the topic of Vladimir Putin on all pages of Wikipedia including talk". Sagecandor (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

No, we want you to prove that RT IS reliable. The criteria for reliability are laid out at WP:RS. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:09, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Subtle vandalism by Emily Goldstein

With this change here by Emily Goldstein (talk · contribs) = subtle vandalism broke links to many citations by removing the domain names from several different links to sources.

Not sure why that was done or what the intent behind that was here.

Sagecandor (talk) 14:43, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Result was blocked by Ritchie333. Sagecandor (talk) 17:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

As I've said on the user's talk page, such a regex option should be available on every page to see the pattern of sourcing more clearly (though without having to press "save").

Since then, the following paragraph has been removed (this is a much more serious disruption):

The Washington Post and PropOrNot received criticism from other media including The Intercept, Fortune and Rolling Stone. Matthew Ingram of Fortune magazine felt that PropOrNot cast too wide a net in identifying fake news websites. The Intercept journalists Glenn Greenwald and Ben Norton were highly critical that the organization included Naked Capitalism on its list. The Intercept called the reporting by The Washington Post as "shoddy", and Fortune magazine called the evidence "flimsy". Writing for Rolling Stone, Matt Taibbi described the report as "astonishingly lazy" and questioned the methodology used by PropOrNot and the lack of information about who was behind the organization.

References

One person's vandalism is another's positive contributions. Anyone interested in the sourcing of this article should look at the link above. SashiRolls (talk) 10:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC)→→

POV

This article ist biased and POV. It needs to be improved. DerElektriker (talk) 11:29, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This article is based on over 100 secondary sources and reflects multiple perspectives from those secondary sources. Sagecandor (talk) 16:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem is, where are the sources from? Most if not all of the sources seem to have the same way of thinking. Now take the problem in reverse. Let's suppose russia didn't make any propaganda and this is just a propaganda attack from the USA who are trying to decredibilize russia because, let's say, they want their version of every important event to spread. How would that be handled? Everything is supposed to be objectively told, yet there's almost no citation of someone who was trying to defend russia in this giant debate. Sites like propornot offer a completely biased version of the scene, and should be considered as propaganda, but this article doesn't actually do better. It smashes russia against the ground, barely letting it a chance to defend itself, and doesn't think about fake news spread by america, who are probably numerous. 2A02:120B:7FB:C1B0:8D9D:314:519D:DBD (talk) 18:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

If you are saying all 100 plus sources are non independent, that is a spurious claim. The secondary sources are independent reliable sources whereas for example Russia Today and Sputnik News are operated by the Russian government as Russian propaganda. Sagecandor (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

In germany we have state financed and controlled media (eg. ARD, ZDF). DerElektriker (talk) 08:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The problem isn't a matter of independance. It is all about the vision. You'll see I never said they lacked independance, if you read what i wrote carefully. What equilibrates a debate is the fact that there will be an equal amount of defenders of each side. This article takes only citations from defenders of one side, and thus has nil neutrality. It describes the russians and macedonians as horrible woe-spreading monsters, and americans as holy heroic victims. It's like accusating someone, and to ask them to shut up when they try to defend themselves. That's not fair. That's why this article should also cite some sources defending russia and macedonia. 2A02:120B:7FB:C1B0:5D33:39A1:7088:29FD (talk) 21:31, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Those who contend that there must be "an equal amount of defenders of each side" for an article to be neutral should review our neutrality guideline. Reliable sources are to be presented in proportion to their prevalence, otherwise we create false balance. If you believe the article is missing reliable sources, then please identify them. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Copy edits to intro section

I'm doing copy edits to intro section to make more succinct.

Please can we discuss instead of wholesale reverting all the copy edits?

What is good, what is objectionable, Florian Blaschke ? Sagecandor (talk) 18:30, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Made more copy edits, but this time, for every single copy edit used a very detailed and specific edit summary to document each exact change made. Primarily the purpose was to reduce excess verbiage within the introduction section, while retaining the exact same meaning for each individual sentence. [10]. Sagecandor (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

@Corinne:Thank you for your interest to this article. Unfortunately, your revert which you may have done from your view to make grammar changes as you had been previously summoned to do so and make that revert -- but your revert also undid massive amounts of content additions. Instead of reverting, could you please discuss individual concerns with me and others, at the article's talk page? Maybe that way we could come to a better understanding? Perhaps we can be more specific and hammer out a good consensus that way? Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius and Neutrality:Not sure what the rationale for this change is? For example, phrase "websites are websites" in the first sentence. That appears quite redundant. Edit also appears to have undone lots of copy editing and adding extra verbose verbiage to the introduction section that is unnecessary. For example, "One Sweden newspaper, The Local," replaced prior wording of: "Swedish paper The Local". As I have no idea what the reasoning is for these edits, I'll wait here for an explanation, please? Sagecandor (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Sagecandor: you insist on discussing, yet you re-reverted two other editors, who explained their objections. You're aware of WP:BRD? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:I believe I reverted in order to add back in additions of content that another copy editor Corinne had mistakenly removed in their wholesale revert. (See examples [11] and [12]). And, Joshua Jonathan, you will note you are the first user to comment in this section on this talk page asking for talk page participation from the other parties involved in the WP:BRD cycle. Sagecandor (talk) 05:08, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:The 3rd step in WP:BRD is called "discuss". Kinda hard to "discuss" when one tries to post repeatedly to the article talk page, and user talk pages, and gets ignored, and users refuse to respond. Kinda eliminates the "discuss" step. Not sure what to do in that situation when one has tried to start a new section on the talk page, ask the other party to come to the talk page, and get ignored instead. I've actually had GREAT experience recently in a different situation where the other party to a dispute did come to the talk page. We worked it all out, and it was great, and wonderful. So talk pages are much better places to discuss and work things out than instead relying upon edit summaries as the sole means of back-and-forth communications. Sagecandor (talk) 05:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Two reverts [13] [14]; Corinne's revert surely wasn't mistakenly, as she already explained at Florian's talkpage. I took a look at the reverts; I'd prefer "Fake news websites are websites that," and I don't know the word gullibility, so probably a lot of readers don't either. And "newspaper" is to be preferred above "paper." So, I've got the impression that Florian and Corinne have got a point. which they already did discuss at Florian's talkpage, in response to you. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Joshua Jonathan:They refused to come here to this talk page to discuss. And you are the first person to bring up those specific copy edits in particular. Sagecandor (talk) 05:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Epicgenius:My thanks to Epicgenius for the subsequent copy edits. Sagecandor (talk) 16:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

McCarthyism section

I notice that in the revert in question, your removal of criticism of the WaPo's poor practices was undone. Why don't you wish for people to know that the "fake news sites" meme has been used to advance a McCarthyist list published by the "venerable" Washington Post on the basis of a shadowy organization called PropOrNot? Looking forward to reading your response to this question, @Sagecandor:. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SashiRolls (talk • contribs)

I was making those edits to directly address talk page complaints about having PropOrNot in the article. Funny how now there are complaints about the opposite. Sagecandor (talk) 15:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@SashiRolls:A lot of people complained about PropOrNot. So I removed it. And you can't just add an entire "McCarthyism" section, to add criticism of PropOrNot to this article, at the bottom, with no prior discussion of what PropOrNot even is. That makes us think you wish to inject "McCarthyism", with no actual discussion of substance from the sources themselves. Sagecandor (talk) 15:59, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep discussion above at Talk:Fake_news_website#Criticism. Sagecandor (talk) 16:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, I think it would be better to keep discussion of your "section blanking" in a section with the appropriate title. I notice you did not answer my question. Here it is again: Why don't you wish for people to know that the "fake news sites" meme has been used to advance a McCarthyist list published by the "venerable" Washington Post on the basis of a shadowy organization called PropOrNot? Looking forward to reading your response to this question, @Sagecandor:. SashiRolls (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Responded, and more comprehensive discussion of prior issues already, above at Talk:Fake_news_website#Criticism. Sagecandor (talk) 20:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No. You did not respond concerning why you deleted the McCarthyism section. You mistakenly stated that I had objected to PropOrNot being in this article, which I certainly did not. I think it is very important for people to realize that the Washington Post is becoming an unreliable source regarding fact-checking. That's all. Shall we reinstate the original text that @Volunteer Marek: deleted and put them back in the section that you deleted? (I left a message on VM's talk page so that everyone could see that they were exactly the same sources, contrary to his edit summary. SashiRolls (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Already being discussed at Talk:Fake_news_website#Criticism. Please discuss up there. Sagecandor (talk) 22:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

No, actually it's not. Nowhere do did I see the word McCarthyism up there. Making a GF effort to organize with those resisting the POV-pushing in this article.SashiRolls (talk) 19:07, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Good survey source

• Kate Connolly, Angelique Chrisafis, Poppy McPherson, Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Benjamin Haas , Dominic Phillips, and Elle Hunt (2 December 2016), "Fake news: an insidious trend that's fast becoming a global problem - With fake online news dominating discussions after the US election, Guardian correspondents explain how it is distorting politics around the world", The Guardian, retrieved 2 December 2016{{citation}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Good survey source.

Describes impacts in multiple different countries.

Good for global overview and improved worldview of issue.

Sagecandor (talk) 17:32, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

SnooganssnoogansThis source, above, also has more info on Italy. Sagecandor (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion about Italy section

[15] = Italy page blanking from section by SashiRolls.

Originally was added by Snooganssnoogans.

Can we discuss?

Sagecandor (talk) 18:00, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

My edit summary was very clear. If Snoog speaks Italian well enough to read the blog, he can provide us with a fluent translation. SashiRolls (talk) 18:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You are at or more likely over 3RR, please refrain from any further edit-warring. diff1, diff2, diff3, reversion of signature / talk page refactoring here, comment: since Corrine's two reversion were not related to copy edits to the intro, I corrected the section title to reflect its content. SashiRolls (talk) 18:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

@Neutrality:, I see that Neutrality has added [16] the info on Italy back to the article. So my thanks to Neutrality for these helpful edits. Please also notice we have more sources for info on Italy, with The Guardian, as noted above. Sagecandor (talk) 20:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, the text is improved. Thank you for doing what I asked the OP to do, Neutrality. SashiRolls (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Glad we both agree on something, SashiRolls. Nice to find common ground on the edits by Neutrality. Thank you for your constructive talk page comments here about that. Sagecandor (talk) 20:16, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

FYI, it's generally considered bad form to delete edit warring notifications from your talk page. (Just a heads up for someone who has a lot of skillz for a "newbie"...) SashiRolls (talk) 20:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, SashiRolls, but I'd rather receive input from a previously uninvolved neutral admin who does not have a vested interest in a particular ongoing dispute. But I read your posts and I appreciate your concern for my interests. Sagecandor (talk) 20:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Is PropOrNot over-weighted in this article?

PropOrNot could probably have its own wiki article at this point.

But it is way too overweighted in this article.

This article is about fake news, not PropOrNot.

PropOrNot has at this point been thoroughly debunked by Adrian Chen of The New Yorker at [17].

At the most it could merit a two sentence mention.

One sentence saying PropOrNot was used by The Washington Post.

And another listing a few other news outlets that debunked it.

Sagecandor (talk) 22:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Could you please try to write in paragraphs and try to choose section titles that are not leading? (I've changed the title to a question.) Discussion of PropOrNot, along with the conservative think tank the WaPo journalist cited (Foreign Policy Research Institute) are exactly the sort of balance this article needs. Of course the Russians engage in propaganda. It is necessary to counter our own (which is quite often uncritically echoed in Wikipedia due to a very narrow vision of WP:RS ). Thankfully, for once, mainstream RS are debunking the WaPo... as they have been more and more frequently in the last year. SashiRolls (talk) 22:42, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, but this is not the right article to do that. That would be --> The Washington Post and/or PropOrNot. Sagecandor (talk) 22:47, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

The WaPo was pushing fake news. So they have their place here. Don't hesitate to create that page on PropOrNot. That would show you were a dedicated Wikipedian, to be sure! SashiRolls (talk) 22:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

They have their place, sure, but a two sentence mention would be plenty. Sagecandor (talk) 22:56, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Thankfully, the New Yorker, Rolling Stone, Fortune, the Intercept and the co-owner of the Nation gave it more than 2 sentences. IMO, *this* article is way too long, and way too biased, cut it by at least half, "and then", to quote MelanieN, "we'll talk". ^_^ SashiRolls (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Biased how? It is telling that you wrote in your words, quote "Western institutions" ? Are you trying to put in Wikipedia's voice in main article space that the article is biased somehow towards "Western institutions", as you say? Sagecandor (talk) 23:10, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

My hope is that you did not write the copy "in an attempt to lessen democratic values", because I'm really not sure what that might have meant. The notion of weakening (European) institutions is indeed in the article that we source to. (facts, just facts) SashiRolls (talk) 23:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Clearly you have not checked the cited sources before blatantly removing or changing information. That is quite inappropriate. Sagecandor (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

"D. whereas information warfare is a historical phenomenon as old as warfare itself; whereas targeted information warfare against the West was extensively used by the Soviet Union during the Cold War, and has since been an integral part of modern hybrid warfare, which is a combination of military and non-military measures of a covert and overt nature, deployed to destabilise the political, economic and social situation of a country under attack, without a formal declaration of war, targeting not only partners of the EU, but also the EU itself, its institutions and all Member States and citizens irrespective of their nationality and religion;" [18] Apologies will be accepted for the false accusation.SashiRolls (talk) 23:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow that's misleading and disinformation. That is the WRONG LINK. The citation you changed was from source Deutsche Welle. Sagecandor (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wow, that's misleading disinformation! Indeed in DW, you can find the words "eroding confidence in European institutions", which are in turn -- in different form, of course -- in the resolution that DW makes reference to (cited above). A simple ctrl-f should suffice. Also, we should include the fact that the majority of deputies did not vote for the resolution. (over 200 abstained...) SashiRolls (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Way overweighted--the influence of this source should be curtailed. Solntsa90 (talk) 00:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Great! Thank you, Solntsa90, for commenting here. So how about the model I proposed, above? What about one sentence about PropOrNot, and one sentence criticizing it? Sagecandor (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

With this addition, we now have 3 times more about criticism of "PropOrNot", than about PropOrNot itself, in an article that is not titled PropOrNot. I agree with Solntsa90 that we should significantly trim down size devoted to PropOrNot in this article, both content and criticism of it. Sagecandor (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Created new article with content from this article, at PropOrNot. Hopefully that will make it easier to trim down info here, and instead refer readers there for more info on that topic. Sagecandor (talk) 18:59, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I went and created the new article on the group PropOrNot. Then, as proposed on the talk page here in this section, and agreed to on the talk page by user Solntsa90, I've trimmed down the info on PropOrNot in the Fake news website article to one sentence on the organization, and one sentence listing many publications that criticized it --> [19]. Sagecandor (talk) 19:07, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Alphabetical order for sections by country name

Changed order for sections:

Alphabetical order for sections by country name.

No content itself changed or removed. [20] [21]

Hopefully this particular change will be seen as an uncontroversial improvement.

Sagecandor (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Expand Macedonia to add some balance

It seems a significant number of users are arriving at this page complaining about the Russia content. That's okay, and thank you for your interest in this article.

We have some good sourced content here to reliable, independent sources, and it's a well researched article. I'd suggest we expand other sections instead of deleting sourced content.

To that end, I'd like to expand the "Macedonia" section a bit, as it's true as mentioned above on this talk page that there were lots of sources analyzing influx of fake news websites from Macedonia -- specifically Veles, Macedonia.

We have at least one new really good source for this, Associated Press published by CBS News, at: "In Macedonia's fake news hub, this teen shows how it's done".

• "In Macedonia's fake news hub, this teen shows how it's done", CBS News, Associated Press, 2 December 2016, retrieved 3 December 2016

Hopefully this is another helpful step on how to improve the article and satisfy at least a majority of respondents to this talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 01:44, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Expanded Veles, Macedonia info in Macedonia section. Have a look at the expansion and hopefully this supplements and balances some of the Russia info. Please see: [22]. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 01:58, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

The impact of "Fake News" on the public

I'm seeing an awful lot of insinuation in the article regarding 'Fake News' (i.e,that it influenced the election) but aside from mere anecdotes, I cannot actually find anything in the article that would attribute a greater-than-average influence to 'Fake News' on the US Election, or any other major event for that matter.

With that in mind, what evidences are there to support that 'Fake News' is even newsworthy, true, or affirmed, aside from being a temporary moral panic? Solntsa90 (talk) 08:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM. Sagecandor (talk) 18:22, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Why? I've added back the citation that Sagecandor deleted making exactly this point. This is a content issue that Solntsa90 is raising. SashiRolls (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Created new article on organization and website PropOrNot

I went and created the new article on the group PropOrNot.

This was as suggested to me by SashiRolls at Don't hesitate to create that page on PropOrNot. That would show you were a dedicated Wikipedian, to be sure!.

Please help and go improve and expand the article at --> PropOrNot.

Thank you! Sagecandor (talk) 19:09, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Done. Look forward to reading more about their qualifications. SashiRolls (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Propaganda / Scare-mongering

I've restored two quotes that you keep deleting Sagecandor. As is, this page, as many have commented, reads like propaganda or scare-mongering intended to bring us back to a Cold War mentality. While this should still be pretty obvious to the casual reader, it might be wiser to allow those who have criticized this hysteria to be cited directly rather than paraphrasing their words euphemistically. The two examples I've chosen to take a stand on (among the many I have not) are here. If you can get consensus for neutering that criticism below, go ahead, that way we will have Wikipedians on record on the talk page... but please do not change without further discussion of the quotes on the talk page.

I would note that you seem particularly concerned about paraphrasing these very short quotes, but not the much longer quotes such as:

• "But once Zuckerberg admits he’s actually running one of the most powerful media brands on the planet, he has to get more aggressive about promoting real news and weeding out hoaxers and charlatans. The alternative is to watch Facebook’s own credibility decline."
• "It’s not a crazy idea. What’s crazy is for him to come out and dismiss it like that, when he knows, and those of us at the company know, that fake news ran wild on our platform during the entire campaign season."
• In the same blog post, he stated that "News and media are not the primary things people do on Facebook, so I find it odd when people insist we call ourselves a news or media company in order to acknowledge its importance."
• "It's really remarkable to see how big news operations have come around to challenging false and deceitful claims directly. It's about time."
• "Fact-checking is now a proven ratings getter. I think editors and news directors see that now. So that's a plus."

If you wish to paraphrase quotes, these would be good ones to paraphrase or, more likely, identify as padding and delete (which would help cut down the tl;dr effect of this repetitive article which keeps repeating itself over and over again, repetitively). No offence, but we are striving for neutrality here, not to see how many times we can write the words "(Russian) propaganda" in a single WP article. SashiRolls (talk) 11:45, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Too long

This article is too long. The whole thing can probably be cut by 50% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.182.93.186 (talk) 01:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

From time of above complaint as comparison at: [23] reduced size of article from 142.4 Kb to 132.4 Kb with this new version: [24]. Sagecandor (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Should Shareblue / Blue Nation Review be added to the 2016 elections section?

[25] this edit by SashiRolls (talk · contribs) appears to direct violate WP:SYNTH.

And edit-wars to add it back in, again, at [26].

Do any WP:SECONDARY sources describe this newly added content as a "fake news website" ?

If not, it's gotta go. Sagecandor (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, this is clearly synthesis. It has been swiftly removed, and rightly so. This is more than just playing fast and loose with the sources; it's disingenuous and transparent POV pushing. Neutrality^talk 03:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No. There's no WP:SYNTH in anything I added, every word was supported by the sources. Pravda-esque was in the New York Times. The argument that the main goal of the paper was to elect Clinton too (this is why it's in the section on the 2016 elections). As to Blue Nation Review being on the list of fakenews fact checker pages, it is listed on two that I've seen (here's one: → http://www.fakenewschecker.com/fake-news-source/blue-nation-review ←). Of course, I don't believe this is any more worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia than most of the rest of the article, so I won't fight. Also, please note there was no edit-warring. Asking someone to discuss on the talk page is not edit-warring. And of course we know the POV of Neutrality.SashiRolls (talk) 06:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

No, the article content that has nothing to do with fake news, and furthermore it is difficult to see how any rational observer could see otherwise. Political spin is not "Fake news." Neutrality^talk 13:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Text deleted: Websites like Shareblue, formerly Blue Nation Review, have also sought to influence the 2016 USelections: with $2 million in funding from political donors, reportedly / according to the New York Times the main goal of this David Brock-owned site was to get Hillary Clinton elected. The stories written and published during the election by the CEO of True Blue Media, LLC (a former Clinton Senate staffer and web specialist during her 2008 campaign) included "With Bernie Sanders As Their Nominee, Democrats Can Kiss The Presidency Goodbye", "Why does Bernie Sanders keep denigrating Hillary’s supporters?" , and "Hillary Clinton’s feat of strength obliterates months of health conspiracies," which have been identified as "Pravda-esque".

References

In retrospect I could have added what is in maroon in the text to make clear this assertion was made by a reliable source and not just in wiki-text. Again, check it out, there is no WP:SYNTH in the text above, every word checks out to the articles cited. Verifiably. SashiRolls (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

You're trying to insert that text into an article about FAKE NEWS, so you're damned right it's synthesis in THIS article, especially since there's not a single goddamned word about lying or falsehoods. Trying to put that in is your clumsy attempt at guilt-by-association and will not stand. --Calton | Talk 09:08, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

As Carlton and Sagecandor says, it's clearly synthesis. Neutrality^talk 13:55, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my revert. See comments from Carlton, Neutrality and Sagecandor. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 21:52, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It should also be noted that SashiRolls misrepresents the content of the Times's article, including cherry-picking and misrepresenting the "Pravda-esque" quote. So triple NO to including this spin. --Calton | Talk 01:37, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I see that SashiRolls has brought up this edit at an unrelated grievance-fest at WP:AE, still trying to justify it. They made reference to a so-called "fakenews fact checker page" (which I'd overlooked above), so I decided to check it out. Of Blue Nation Review -- which is not even its current name -- .fakenewschecker.com says:

Blue Nation Review publishes information from a left biased position with an advocacy for liberal causes. The editorial content and headlines are often loaded with strong words to appeal to emotions and stereotypes. They may publish misleading reports, cite unverified sources, reference bogus reports and omit information that may damage their cause. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion and/or propaganda. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

Yeah, sounds pretty damning, though I don't see any actual attempt at supporting that statement. Hmm, what about other sites? About Counterpunch, which SashiRolls maintains is a reliable source?:

CounterPunch publishes information from a left biased position with an advocacy for liberal causes. The editorial content and headlines are often loaded with strong words to appeal to emotions and stereotypes. They may publish misleading reports, cite unverified sources, reference bogus reports and omit information that may damage their cause. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion and/or propaganda. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

Boy, that looks familiar. How about Democracy Now, which SashiRolls has had no trouble with before?:

Democracy Now publishes information from a left biased position with an advocacy for liberal causes. The editorial content and headlines are often loaded with strong words to appeal to emotions and stereotypes. They may publish misleading reports, cite unverified sources, reference bogus reports and omit information that may damage their cause. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion and/or propaganda. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

Hmm. Mother Jones?:

Mother Jones publishes information from a left biased position with an advocacy for liberal causes. The editorial content and headlines are often loaded with strong words to appeal to emotions and stereotypes. They may publish misleading reports, cite unverified sources, reference bogus reports and omit information that may damage their cause. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion and/or propaganda. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

What about The Onion?:

The Onion publishes information that cannot be validated and that is anti scientific fact. The information provided should be regarded as speculative opinion or propaganda and cannot be substantiated by fact or evidence. It is among the most untrustworthy sources in the media.

Oh, that's a relief, they change the text a...wait a minute there.

I'm beginning to believe that SashiRolls's approaching to fact-checking is "whatever echoes my agenda", not "actually factual". That would be strangely appropriate, given the article in question here. --Calton | Talk 16:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Politically charged, partisan editors?

The article seems way to biased towards the left as it is now, with examples consistently being target against the right. The sheer length and content of the text gives an impression it was written hastly and by partisan sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.241.124.119 (talk) 13:28, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that there needs to be balance in the presentation of information about fake news sites so that the reliable-sourced presentation can reflect an improved overview on the implication on journalism ethics.maslowsneeds🌈 14:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

And I think some people need a refresher on the difference between reflexively symmetrical and appropriate balance. --Calton | Talk 23:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I've encountered some interestingly strange hostility after I encouraged people to make suggestions for edits if they feel there is a POV bias. My experience gives credence to your position of politically charged, partisan editors. 1Eternity1 (talk) 05:00, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Update -- Maslowsneeds (talk · contribs) subsequently blocked for edits related to this article. Sagecandor (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Anyone else find it incredibly suspicious that this page's creation date is exactly 1 week after the US presidential election?

What is the process for dealing with pages that are suspected to be outright propaganda? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:184:4601:2C4:F5D9:2FA5:28D4:564E (talk) 23:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

That was about the same time coverage significantly increased on this topic from WP:SECONDARY sources. Sagecandor (talk) 23:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It just seems a little ironic that the article covers a topic that allegedly suddenly appeared during the election season, when the article itself suddenly appeared almost immediately after, promulgated by media outlets which were notoriously inaccurate during said election. Are we supposed to take their word for it now after they were wrong about everything else? 2601:184:4601:2C4:F5D9:2FA5:28D4:564E (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

This talk page is WP:NOTAFORUM. Sagecandor (talk) 23:57, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure we should be taking the word of someone who doesn't know the meaning of the word "ironic". --Calton | Talk 00:16, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:01, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

To Everyone Complaining about POV in this article

This article is new (as pointed out above). Because it is new, it is likely written and edited by a fewer number of people than other Wikipedia articles, and thus, most likely, has a less neutral POV than other more mature articles. For those who see a POV, please make the article better by a) pointing out the specific statements that are POV in the article, b) suggest changes to the presentation/language to make the article more neutral, c) suggest new sections to the article to make it more neutral, d) spend some time to edit it and make it better by being a constructive editor. Fake news websites is certainly a notable newsworthy topic and a specific article on it should exist (I've even included Breitbart references to prove this point). 1Eternity1 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

References

No offense, but this is a naïve fairy tale you are spinning. I'm facing a perma ban over reverting an underlying edit that I didn't even originate to this article. There is a cabal of corrupt editors, who are deemed "insiders," who retaliate against contributors for challenging the ideological gatekeeping of articles. Nonetheless, all the power to you, that you succeed in bringing about neutrality to this article. But be careful that you don't trigger retaliation against yourself over edits about journalism ethics, particularly if you are still of the mindset that one person can make a difference in the culture that insulates insider editors from POV-pushing that has emerged and is protected at Wikipedia. Aaron Swartz raised this concern years and years ago, and his concern has gone unheeded. --maslowsneeds🌈 10:30, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

You might be right that it is a naive fairy tale. This article is especially biased, and the behavior of the primary editors makes it difficult to assume good faith. 1Eternity1 (talk) 03:15, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

If you're facing a permaban, it's of your own making. You were given a AE topic ban on post-1932 US politics because you were unable to control yourself, instead blaming everyone and everything for your troubles. Despite the clear topic ban, you add back a clearly political statement -- one that didn't belong here in the first place. Then, after TWO warnings that you were violating your topic ban, you try to repurpose that same political edit into an unambiguously political article Shareblue, so even your fig leaf of a claim that it's about "journalist ethics" doesn't cover it.

As or Eternity1's advice: considering that his links from Breibart News -- already an unreliable source -- have nothing to do with fake news sites -- the actual topic of this article -- but are instead Breitbart's usual blather about the horrible terrible lamestream media, I'd say that your advice is particularly unreliable. So thanks, but no thanks. --Calton | Talk 11:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read my comment. You seem to have misunderstood the entire comment. Those refs were merely to show the notability of the topic as it appears in popular media. It wasn't meant to be a formal suggestion for an edit in the article. 1Eternity1 (talk) 03:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Since your links are to unreliable -- or perhaps I should say reliably unreliable -- sources that aren't actually about the topic, I'm going to go with someone else not understanding. --Calton | Talk 03:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Whatever Breitbart is, it is popular media. The claim that I made is that the topic was mentioned in popular media. Of course, if you want to make the counter claim that this topic is not notable and should be deleted, please do so. 1Eternity1 (talk) 03:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You're making a claim, supposedly, to counter something which NO ONE IS SAYING. And by "no one", I include you, since there isn't a breath of a whisper of a hint of a suggestion of this charge which you claim to be countering in your original statement. That hole you're in? That shovel in your hand? They're related. --Calton | Talk 16:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You'd try to argue with me if I said the sky is blue and cited a Breitbart article mentioning the deep blue of the sky on a talk page. You really need another hobby. So chill, Bro. 11Eternity11 (talk) 04:42, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You may wish to read Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. Sagecandor (talk) 04:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

You'd try to argue with me if I said the sky is blue and cited a Breitbart article. No, I'm debunking your clumsy attempt at spin. And yes, ANY good Wikipedia editor (not just me) would immediately reject Breitbart as a reliable source for anything other than (maybe) about Breitbart itself.

You really need another hobby. So chill, Bro. And yet here you are, digging that hole deeper still. So who, exactly, needs to chill? --Calton | Talk 05:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Spin? This was my original statement: "Fake news websites is certainly a notable newsworthy topic and a specific article on it should exist (I've even included Breitbart references to prove this point). " I've since argued against this point of view (as I think most of this article seems to be a POV fork). Seriously Bro, get another hobby for your own sake. 11Eternity11 (talk) 08:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're arguing against a claim that NO ONE HAS MADE. As for your childish "get a life" suggestion: why are YOU here? I've been here twelve years, you've been here -- what? -- two days? And now that your attempt at spinning has flopped, you've decided to contradict yourself and try to obscure the topic. I'd say that, yeah, someone needs a new hobby because your initial attempts at this new one don't seem to be working out too well. --Calton | Talk 08:15, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Spoken by a user who been accused of vandalizing political pages by replacing "Trump" with "Drumpf". 11Eternity11 (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2016 (UTC)UTC)

Spoken by an editor with both a reading-comprehension AND an intellectual-honesty problem. Perhaps you a) ought to read the talk page of the editor who left the message; and b) avoid dishonest rhetorical tricks to try to distract attention. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

My advice was to those many many people complaining about the article: help make the article better. Of course, you say that this advice is unreliable, which I can only take to mean that you wish all the critics of this article to go away so that you may be free to push a POV. 1Eternity1 (talk) 03:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Your "advice" as you just claimed you made ("make the article better") was of no actual value, but the advice you actually tried to give ("spin it this way, based on these POV and unreliable links") was worse. --Calton | Talk 05:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

My advice was clear and made in an effort to encourage consensus and productive behavior. My links included the NY Times, NPR, and criticism of the topic by the National Review and Breitbart. Whatever you want to makeup in your head about my intentions is your issue. 11Eternity11 (talk) 08:31, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Your "advice" -- especially from a two-day old account -- was, at the very best, unnecessary and I'll-informed. The garbage links you threw up and the platitudes about "neutral POV", however, pretty much sealed it. This isn't our first rodeo, you know. --Calton | Talk 12:04, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I believe topic bans apply to talk pages too.Volunteer Marek (talk) 17:32, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Fake news led to actual violence - added to article

Added section on fake news leading to recent violent attack with an assault rifle [27], with content from article Comet Ping Pong [28] and one sentence from draft page [29]. Sagecandor (talk) 18:05, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

BuzzFeed News

BuzzFeed News is most certainly a good source for this article.

1. BuzzFeed News received official statements from the FBI, and have been cited as an authoritative source for information on this very topic by:
2. The Hollywood Reporter,
3. The New York Times,
4. New York Magazine,
5. and FOX News.

References

Therefore, we have other reliable sources both from "left" and "right" perspectives, all citing and depending on BuzzFeed News for reliable investigative reporting. Sagecandor (talk) 22:44, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A quote for an article in the Columbia Journalism Review on BuzzFeed: "The viral videos it (BuzzFeed) publishes—generally without vetting—occasionally turn out to be hoaxes, the kind of mistake that delights old print curmudgeons eager to assert their ethical superiority"[30] Sorry, but BuzzFeed is not reliable. 1Eternity1 (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad nauseam at WP:RSN. BuzzFeed is sometimes a reliable source, and this really looks like one of those times, especially with the avalanche of other sources quoting it. Buzzfeed, like many modern news sites, (and news outlets in general going back much farther), publishes both news and "editorial" content with distinction between them. This is supported by the CJR article you quote, which discusses Buzzfeed's relatively recent addition of a real journalism program. Grayfell (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, Grayfell, there certainly have been an avalanche of sources quoting it. As Grayfell helpfully pointed out, the same source the Columbia Journalism Review noted: "And BuzzFeed’s narrative features and investigations will be edited, copyedited, and fact-checked by contract checkers.". Also, note that article is from 2014 - so they've had some time to implement all those forms of editorial review in the 2 years since then. Sagecandor (talk) 06:02, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

As with many sources, there's no blanket rule you can cite or apply – it depends on the context and the actual article being used. Buzzfeed certainly does some "proper" journalism these days and would be OK in some contexts. As would RT of course, but the same editor leaping to defend Buzzfeed comes to the opposite conclusion, and declares that to be universally useless, when that name comes up (see endless comments above re bias and neutrality etc). N-HH talk/edits 10:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Already discussed above at Talk:Fake news website#Russia Today fails as reliable source about Russian propaganda by Russian government. Let's keep discussion of Russian propaganda source Russia Today in that section. Sagecandor (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, BuzzFeed would know a thing or two about "hoaxes, propaganda, and disinformation to increase web traffic through sharing on social media". It's indeed a centre of top-notch journalism and not at all biased [31] Bear in mind that the Daily Mail is deemed unreliable here because although they sometimes have a good investigation, it's one in a million between click bait and hyper-partisanship. Why is BuzzFeed considered different? Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 15:39, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You gave a link to BuzzFeed, not BuzzFeed News. Separate department, which as noted above by Grayfell has editorial oversight. Sagecandor (talk) 15:40, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Buzzfeed is the very epitome of what constitutes 'Fake News'; to include Buzzfeed on this page as a valid, credible source would almost be making a mockery of this very article. Buzzfeed is not credible, and should be disregarded as a source by anyone seriously interested in making a positive impact on this project. Solntsa90 (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Read the fourth paragraph of your link, the one that starts with "BuzzFeed is no scrappy little start-up anymore". Here, I'll make it easier for you: They’ve decided it makes good journalism and business sense to assure readers that their posts are true, so BuzzFeed is embracing the ultimate symbol of the overstuffed print newsrooms of the pre-digital past. BuzzFeed is hiring copy editors. clpo13_(talk) 20:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, Solntsa90, please read what you cite. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

You think a passage that describes them trying to take on the appearance of a legitimate organisation...somehow makes them legitimate? I took it as a sign of them attempting to appear legitimate despite no claim to do so. Solntsa90 (talk) 21:48, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on that article. Here's another CJR article, specifically about fake news, that praises Buzzfeed and cites multiple Buzzfeed stories. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:13, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

POV fork of Hoax, Propaganda, and Yellow Journalism?

I'm starting to think that this whole page is a POV fork of Hoax, Propaganda, and Yellow Journalism, at least, the way it is written currently. 1Eternity1 (talk) 08:49, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree to some extent. There's nothing new about slanted or even outright inaccurate reporting (whether deliberately so or not), or internet hoaxes. "Fake news" is simply the latest media buzzword for certain alleged instances of it, particularly in liberal elements of the media, and one which comes loaded with all sorts of insinuations that the Russians are behind it all and/or it's stupid Trump fans who fall for it. This page, especially as currently written, is simply repeating that narrative. WP defines topics, not terms. N-HH talk/edits 10:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, on the topic/term, this page is of course more specifically titled "Fake news website". In which case it needs to lose all the stuff about "trolls", other online activity and individual instances of erroneous or debatable news reporting (which may have occurred in good faith), and simply focus on websites set up to mimic actual news sites and deliberately disseminate misinformation (many of which, as it happens, seem aimed simply at making money rather than being part of some grand propaganda strategy). That would also arguably be a discrete contemporary topic. N-HH talk/edits 10:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to go improve those separate articles Hoax, Propaganda, and Yellow Journalism. Your choice of topic header for this talk page "Hoax, Propaganda, and Yellow Journalism" seems quite inflammatory and POV itself, as if intending to push a particular point across. This is not the article about Hoax, Propaganda, and Yellow Journalism. Sagecandor (talk) 15:32, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Explain how? They're saying that this article is re-hashing material that would be better placed in those articles? If it's inflammatory and POV to say that, then I don't know what Anarcho-authoritarian (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean. This article is not "re-hashing" anything. All material is sourced to secondary sources directly discussing the topic of this article itself. Sagecandor (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Since most of article discusses Russian propaganda that is disseminated via 21st century forms of communication (the interwebs, social media, etc.), the material should be presented in one of the many propaganda pages: Russian propaganda, Overview of 21st-century propaganda, Propaganda, etc. The material on fake news designed as money making operations should be added to the Clickbait page. I am not exactly certain how this "fake news" as it applies to journalism techniques is any different than yellow journalism. WaPo isn't clear either on the distinction, and those who knowingly engage in Fake News websites call themselves the "new yellow journalists". The sources of this article aren't very academic by in large (BuzzFeed, really?), and have been accused of being Clickbait themselves with sloppy journalism standards and/or disseminating propaganda. Using journalism sources that report on the journalism ethics of their competitors isn't wise. They have a conflict of interest. It's like citing Coke as a reliable source when making claims that Pepsi is a terrible drink. 11Eternity11 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Ah okay, I see, so you want to essentially remove everything from this page. Sagecandor (talk) 06:05, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

References

I think you have a wee little too much involvement on this page Sagecandor, and really stop trying to make it your personal baby, as these faithless accusations against other users are not helpful to the construction of this article at all. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

As for 11Eternity11's comment, I co-sign, 100%. Solntsa90 (talk) 15:55, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 7 December 2016

Fake news website → Fake news – The ultimate subject is "fake news"; Fake news originate/propagate not only via dedicated websites. They may also be generated via social networks - üser:Altenmann >t 20:11, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose. Main topic is as per first sentence of article, deliberately fraudulent news sites. Companion to List of fake news websites. Sagecandor (talk) 20:25, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Further, "fake news" can refer to many different things [32], which is why we have the disambiguation page at Fake news. "Fake news website" generally refers to propaganda or clickbait websites that intentionally and specifically make fraud for personal gain. Sagecandor (talk) 22:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Notice also the disambiguation note at the top of the article: This article is about intentionally fraudulent websites. Sagecandor (talk) 22:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support with editing. The lead says that the article is about websites, and the focus of the lead on websites: but overall the actual subject matter of the article is fake news itself. For example, the section Impacts by country is about the impact of fake news itself. I would suggest (1) making the move and (2) editing the article to make clear it is really about fake news as such. Task (2) will not require much work, for the very reason that actually the interesting thing is the fake news and not the websites. --MrStoofer (talk) 09:18, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support as clear WP:PRIMARYTOPIC: current widespread press coverage and public understanding of the phenomenon is only ever talking about websites when it uses the term "fake news". --McGeddon (talk) 12:17, 8 December 2016 (UTC)