Talk:Fake news

Active discussions

Britain using fake news to influence USA in the 1940sEdit

Dirty tricks and fake news were employed to discredit individual congressmen, like the prominent isolationist Hamilton Fish of New York. According to an official history, the goal was to "put the fear of God into every isolationist senator and congressman in the country." They funded his opponents; published pamphlets suggesting he was pro-Hitler; released a false photo of Fish with the head of the pro-Nazi German American Bund; and they planted stories saying he was getting financial aid from German agents. The British sustained the effort till he was finally beaten in 1944. ... The only GOP candidate with a pro-British agenda was one Wendell Willkie, from Indiana. He went into the convention as a decided underdog. Then a poll came out from a polling organization called Market Analysis, Inc. It said that 60 percent of delegates favored helping the UK. ... Decades after the war, it was revealed that Market Analysis, Inc., was a British creation.


-> let us include it

Zezen (talk) 10:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I would rather have a couple of more sources.Slatersteven (talk) 10:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Fake news definitionEdit

Is there any definition of fake news? CNN reports false information and lies which can be substantiated, does that make CNN a Fake News site? Clearly, the Onion is a fake news site, but it's done in jest, for purpose of humor. Sites like CNN do it with intent to mislead, with malice. They have admitted they are a mouthpiece for the government and 'lean left' as recorded Project Veritas video shows, from the top to the bottom. CNN has been outed as a fake news organization - so should it not be included? What about other government controlled media? Just by being owned and stating opinions of the government does that by itself make you fake news? What defines Fake News? Anyone can throw together a 'fact check' site and claim that any fact is a lie, such as with no evidence. Does that make Fake News? or is that a "Fake Fact Check" site? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireadia2020 (talkcontribs) 23:45, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Your premise is clearly based on your personal opinions about CNN and other outlets. "Fake news" is already clearly defined in the lede of this article. Please see WP:NOTFORUM. Unless you have suggestions for improving this article while also respecting our policies concerning neutral point of view, please do not post on this Talk page. General Ization Talk 00:37, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

No, not my opinion. This is widely accepted, and documented here on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikireadia2020 (talkcontribs)

No, it is not widely accepted. Of course there have been controversies in a news organization that has broadcast daily for 39 years. But, that does not a fake news site make, our opinions are not reliable sources, and Project Veritas has a long history of faking videos. O3000 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Here we go [[1]]. Of course this can include mistakes. But the implication is knowingly false.Slatersteven (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

History sectionEdit

Some of the content from the history section sound too out of context. While somewhat relevant, seem too have too much of an emphasis on how rumors that have occurred in history is heavily correlated to where "fake news" might be coming from. --23gobears (talk) 05:39, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

Jojijoj (talk) 02:54, 13 February 2020 (UTC)EvaluationEdit

Lead evaluation

The Lead has a concise and clear introductory sentence and all the information included is present in the article. But the Lead does not include a brief description of the article's major sections and it is overly detailed.


The content of the article is definitly relevant to the topic and up-to-date since it was lase edited on 7 February 2020. Like I mentioned at the begining, there are content about the influences fake news has on our soceity, specific social groups, certain individuals, etc. How fake news changed or affected the way people perceived public inforrmation? How does films or tv shows portrayed fake news?

Tone and Balance

The overal tone of this article is pretty neutral, but there is a tag in the "Identifying" section saying that its "tone or style may not reflect the encyclopedic tone used on Wikipedia."

Sources and References

The article did a great job on backing up all facts with reliable, thorough, and current secondary sources. All the links I checked are working.


Some sections for the article is a littlt bit too long to read (e.g. the Lead, 21st century). Also, the "By Country" section is too long and inconenvient to navigate, and I think that all the information of this section can be organized and separated into some different, more specific and clear sections, instead of countries.

Images and Media

The images in this article definitely enhance the readers' understanding of the topic and are laid out in a visually appealing way. But toward the end of the article, there is a picture of Donald Trump which I think is not captioned professionally.

Checking the talk page

Since this page was nominated for deletion, there were discussion arguing that this article should be kept. There are also discussions of the recent fake news, defintions, and history of fake news. This article is of interest to the WikiPoject Politics and WikiProject Journalism.

Overall evaluation

This article is in the high performanced C-class, which is an intermediate article with room for improvement. The strengths are that it already has a lot of comprehensive information and since this toic is becoming more and moire importand in our media industry, and more people are aware of it, I believe that there are a lot of new facts, stats or even definitions that I can find and add to it.

Return to "Fake news" page.