Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 1

This list will turn into nonsense if a clear inclusion criteria isn't set
A clear inclusion criteria is crucial to a list such as this one. I would even argue that there should be no such list unless one can be articulated. Here's a try:
 * Every site on the list must be accompanied by at least one reliable source.
 * Every site on the list much either:
 * have its own Wikipedia article, or
 * be supported by no less than 3 reliable sources (this is a high bar on purpose).
 * Sourcing must support the site being a "fake news site" or otherwise be noted for its pattern of publishing "fake news". Until this concept develops, this is a neologism, and including a site just because it has a pattern of publishing deceptive or misleading content is not at this point sufficient.

How's that? &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 03:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I think maybe is correct here. We already discussed this a bit at Talk:Fake news website, and I was quite hesitant about this new page, or even a list of same at the main article page at Fake news website. Perhaps the best thing for now is redirect back to Fake news website and keep improving and discussing in-text in a paragraph format. What do others think here? Sagecandor (talk) 03:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
 * My thought is that we should wait a week, try to fill in everything we can, and then any fake site that doesn't have 2 sources (I think 2 is enough for a pattern) should be included, and the others should be in a list on the talk page that we all can keep filling in until we have enough sources on each fake site to migrate to the article. Thoughts? Victor Grigas (talk) 00:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

List vs. table display
This might be unrelated to the discussion, but I want to see these websites listed under a sortable table, with three different columns: the website name, notes about the website, and citations. It then wouldn't look cluttered as it currently is. Evking22 (talk) 16:30, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * How do you sort descriptions and citations (why would you?)? There was a table with one column that violated WP:ELNO and another that was effectively a text description that inappropriately took the place of citations. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 17:46, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking maybe something like this, shown below, with no external links. Or you can put the citations in the notes and forget about the citations column altogether. Evking22 (talk) 18:32, 25 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think has a great idea here, this would make the article page look much better. Sagecandor (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Is there a purpose to doing this, other than personal aesthetic preference? The citations don't need their own column (and doing so is where we use direct quotes, which need the citation immediately following the quote), but otherwise my objections are only minor. So, first, on the aesthetic end of things, the amount of content tends to vary considerably, so we have ugliness like this:


 * Second, having everything in a table makes it harder for users to add/remove/modify things without breaking things. Third, it makes it a little harder to organize later (like breaking into sections, for example). In general I weakly oppose tablefying lists unless there's a lot of standard information (like specs for a comparison of cameras) or a need to sort by multiple elements (author vs. book, say). Here I don't see any of that. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 19:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * According to breaking news story one of top stories, right now, on Google News, will be helpful in the future to organize the sites by country of origin, especially ties to government of Russia. Sagecandor (talk) 19:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I tried it as a table earlier today, and I'd like a table too, but I think the sites/page/references need a bit more work first.Victor Grigas (talk) 00:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Is this a valid source?
I have no idea who runs this site, but there is a list on it http://www.fakenewswatch.com/ Victor Grigas (talk) 03:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest this source instead:
 * Hope that's helpful. Sagecandor (talk) 03:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm personally wondering if the website http://realorsatire.com/ is good enough for sourcing. It's a searchable database of news websites that are listed under several categories, including whether or not if they are real or satire. Evking22 (talk) 16:06, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good for a start on research externally. Then to confirm with secondary sources. But not to use in article space itself. Sagecandor (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Good for a start on research externally. Then to confirm with secondary sources. But not to use in article space itself. Sagecandor (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Center for global research?
Can anyone find anything about this site? http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/GlobalResearch Victor Grigas (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
 * While "Centre for Research on Globalisation" and its author himself both fail reliable sources and should not be themselves used as references (promotion of conspiracy theories, etc.) -- I also haven't yet found sources calling either "fake news", so far. Would be interested to hear updates if that changes. Sagecandor (talk) 03:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned references in List of fake news websites
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of fake news websites's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Novella2010": From Natural News:  From Alternative medicine:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 04:03, 26 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I think it's the first one so have copied that into the article. Robert Walker (talk) 22:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Another list - from 2015
https://gizmodo.com/the-9-worst-fake-news-sites-1681729157 This could be added to a few already here Victor Grigas (talk) 00:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding this article too, because it sums up a few sites Victor Grigas (talk) 00:53, 27 November 2016 (UTC) Victor Grigas (talk) 00:58, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/websites-can-create-outrageous-lies-just-for-clicks-but-why-and-how-is-this-legal-10379088.html
 * Another list from 2014 http://www.relevantmagazine.com/culture/handy-rundown-internets-fake-news-sites
 * more quotes: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2015/01/21/did-facebook-just-kill-the-webs-burgeoning-fake-news-industry/

Breitbart.com
I just removed this:

''Breitbart.com

Because it's contentious, and really should have a few more references if it is to be on this list. In the reference above from Vice News, it says that the map published was corrected. I don't think that sufficient to claim that it's a fake news source. Be my guest if you can find more references.Victor Grigas (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's also IB Times (basically Zimdars, though), Vox (but known for being a bit left-leaning, I think), The Intercept (but says they "in many cases [produce] fake stories..." rather than call them a "fake news site")... BBC on the other hand, draws a distinction between Breitbart and "fake news", which seems like it's probably going to be the consensus view: Breitbart exacerbates and profits from fake news, but despite having a poor record for fact-checking, it is a quasi journalistic enterprise and probably shouldn't be on the list without other sources. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 21:05, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

If everyone doesn't agree with the classification of BREITBART, then put it in another section in this article, and describe it. If is is a cross between satire news and fake news, then state it. The MOST important thing it is not "real news". • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 02:12, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * so I think that the current list is a strict one, if we add others that vary in content, we need to create new sections, as Zimdars did. Victor Grigas (talk) 12:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
 * We can't just start adding categories, though. If it's not called a fake news site by some decent number of sources (TBD here), it shouldn't be included in a list of fake news websites (different section or otherwise). After all, there are separate concepts about, say, sensationalist news, partisan news, gossip sites, and sites with poor editorial oversight and fact-checking. "Fake news website" has things in common with all of them, and there's obviously no bright line distinction, but there does seem to be a consensus that fake news sites intentionally publish false or misleading stories and should be distinguished from the others. They play a role in this that should be covered in the main article, but I don't see a way to include it here. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 14:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)


 * thus we need to make a new LIST article, such as "List of unreliable news websites", and put BreitBart at the top of the list. •  Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 07:08, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Great idea! I'd say go for it :) Victor Grigas (talk) 14:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Be careful of POV forking. 1Eternity1 (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Breitbart does a type of journalism that is as old as the hill. It's called yellow journalism. Since the accusations against Breitbart are that it participates in yellow press and that it is sloppy, and not that it intentionally fabricates new stories, then it shouldn't be added to the fake news list. The fake news list should only include sites that intentionally fabricate news. 1Eternity1 (talk) 06:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This DailyDot report http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/breitbart-weather-channel-fake-climate-news/ that sits this weather channel report https://weather.com/news/news/breitbart-misleads-americans-climate-change?cm_ven=T_WX_CD_120616_2 debunks a breitbart report. It strikes me that this is misleading poor reporting (Yellow Journalism), and not outright fake news. I wonder if we need a List of yellow journalism websites? Curious what others think?Victor Grigas (talk) 16:32, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Creating such a list is opening up a can of worms as even the NY Times has been accused of yellow journalism (by the Wall Street Journal, no less). Both of which are accepted as reliable sources here. 11Eternity11 (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (modified the comment above by 11Eternity11 so that WSJ ref will stop falling to bottom of talkpage) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Infowars.com

 * Infowars.com has been removed - there was a reference to it, but if I recall, it was only one reference, and there seems to be a heated discussion on the page for Alex Jones (radio host) about the issue currently. Are there other sources for this? Victor Grigas (talk) 04:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Infowars should be included in this list, its a site that does not use facts. Two more sources here:

http://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/dont-get-fooled-by-these-fake-news-sites/8/

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/12/04/fake-news-delivers-real-gunman-to-pizzeria-caught-up-in-alt-right-fake-news.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:6500:16D0:9D07:66D4:D29E:6FC0 (talk) 08:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I added it back in, three references including CBS news is non-contentiousVictor Grigas (talk) 15:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Should propaganda sites be included?
The citation included with the listing of Before It's News cited this article by US News & World Report, which categorized various sites as satire, hoax, or propaganda. The article listed Before It's News as propaganda. Are "the plethora of left- and right-leaning propaganda sites out there, deliberately spreading misinformation in order to appeal to certain groups" (as described by the article) within the scope of this list? Thanks, RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 16:51, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

ADDENDUM My opinion would be that, to be included on the list, the site must be reported in reliable sources as having intentionally fabricated news articles (in contrast to simply sloppy journalism). Thus, to put it in the terms of the US News & World Report article, I would include only the satire and hoax sites. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 16:55, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The US News source classifies "propaganda" sites as a subset of fake news sites that "deliberately spread misinformation in order to appeal to certain groups." That's quite different from sloppy journalism, which isn't deliberately false. These sites should be included. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:48, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Too low standard for inclusion, specific gripes please
The standard of inclusion is far too low. For instance [9] right now just refers to another list. (http://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2016-11-14/avoid-these-fake-news-sites-at-all-costs) Specific gripes, that aren't taken out of context, or minor, please.88.159.72.122 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The standard of inclusion is our verifiability policy. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Point of View
I see many problems regarding a neutral point of view for this article. Perhaps predictably, editors keep introducing agencies to the list that are notable and established because they may have a bias against them, for example Fox News and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. Due to this i feel it is appropriate to add the POV dispute template to the article, and the topic can of course be discussed here.  - Euphoria 42  (talk)
 * Yeah those edits were all only vandalism. Sagecandor (talk) 07:51, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Globalize tag
This article list page brings together information from 24 sources. I checked the talk page but did not see any explanation for the "globalize" tag. Perhaps the tagger could explain and also suggest additional sources they would like to use to add to the page? Sagecandor (talk) 15:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The reason I added the tag was because most of the sites are related to the US, which I specified within the tag. I don't see the need for a 'further explanation'. This list is at best, a list of Fake American News Websites. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

CNN
Added CNN to the list. One of their journalists admitted that they fabricate news stories at the behest of governments. http://yournewswire.com/cnn-journalist-governments-pay-us-to-fake-stories-shocking-expose/ Nick012000 (talk) 08:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Better source, please? What is "yournewswire.com" ?? Sagecandor (talk) 08:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Literally the first site that I found on Google when I searched "CNN fake news" that wasn't CNN themselves. It then references an interview she gave with Alex Jones in 2015. Nick012000 (talk) 08:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Source fails WP:RS. Please read about reliable sources. Sagecandor (talk) 08:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The very first line in the article: "According to Amber Lyon, a three-time Emmy award winning journalist, CNN is routinely paid by the US government and foreign governments to selectively report on certain events and make up fake news stories." How is a three-time Emmy award winning journalist not a reliable source? Nick012000 (talk) 08:34, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How do we know the very first line in the article is even trustworthy? What is "yournewswire.com" ? How long have they been operating? What is their editorial oversight? Who are their journalists? What are their standards for verification and confirmation? It appears you are using a fake news site to add CNN to a list of fake news sites? Sagecandor (talk) 08:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * While CNN isn't the most accurate media source out there all the time, I doubt that it rises to the level of a "fake news website". Alex Jones probably isn't a reliable source for media criticism either.
 * "It appears you are using a fake news site to add CNN to a list of fake news sites?" Indeed, it does appear that way. For more detail, please see here. Guy1890 (talk) 09:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Amber Lyons did indeed complain about government influence on CNN, but YNW gets the story completely wrong. Lyons complained that a documentary she created for CNN was not aired on its international channel, and speculated this was to avoid offending the government of Bahrain, which purchases advertising from CNN. She never accused CNN of hosting fake news, and never accused any government of pressuring CNN to change a story. The degree to which YNW got the story wrong can only lead to the conclusion it is totally unreliable. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Okay, then, how about this: http://nypost.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-media-summit-was-a-f-ing-firing-squad/ The New York Post might be a tabloid, but they don't publish unreliable information (it risks getting them sued). Donald Trump himself stated that “‘We’re in a room of liars, the deceitful, dishonest media who got it all wrong.’ He addressed everyone in the room, calling the media dishonest, deceitful liars. He called out Jeff Zucker by name and said everyone at CNN was a liar, and CNN was [a] network of liars,” the source said." Is the President of the United States an unreliable source? Nick012000 (talk) 10:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think you understand the difference between a factual claim by a reliable source and a hyperbolic personal opinion. Donald Trump is not a journalist nor a scholar of journalism. (Neither is the current president, for what it's worth.) Therefore, a president's opinion of any particular given news source might be interesting and even potentially worthy of encyclopedic inclusion somewhere, but it is neither evidence nor proof that a particular outlet's coverage is true or untrue. You don't seem to have much experience with the encyclopedia; may I suggest that you take some time to review our foundational policies such as WP:V, WP:RS and WP:NPOV, and maybe edit some less-controversial areas instead of jumping right into an attempt to push your particular political POV. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:21, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read them. I'm pushing my political point of view to counter-act all the left-wing point of view pushing by most everyone else. That's what WP:NPOV is about, after all. ;) Besides, Trump is reliable: he's the US President-Elect, soon to be the US President, he's been heavily involved with the media and marketing for decades, and he's extremely experienced in media manipulation, playing the media like fools time after time for months on end - that's how he got elected to begin with. Also, a direct link to his Twitter account, calling them Fake News directly: https://mobile.twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/807588632877998081, in response to false media claims about him (which he would be definitely be an expert on). Nick012000 (talk) 15:02, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Donny is a politician, he is only reliable as a source for his views (and he manages to contradict those regularly). Also if (a big if) we accept this as RS for CNN being fa fake news site, that would also mean all the other news organs at that meeting would have to be listed too. So I will take your request more seriously when you demand Fox is listed as a fake news site.Slatersteven (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Under my inclusion criteria, CNN cannot be listed without a reliable source stating that CNN has a practice of intentionally fabricating news articles (criteria that undisputed fake news sites like National Report would certainly meet). These criteria would prevent endless debate over whether a source some editor doesn't like qualifies as fake news, arguments that would ultimately lead to deletion under WP:LSC. (I trust that User:Nick012000 isn't simply adding CNN and MSNBC just to make a point that the editor doesn't view the sources as reliable.) RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 16:13, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

If FoxNews is missing from this list, then CNN doesn't belong on it either. • Sbmeirow  •  Talk  • 07:30, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

MSNBC
Found a Breitbart article that demonstrates that MSNBC is a Fake News source while looking for another source for CNN. Funny how these things work out sometimes. Adding them to the list. www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/02/16/the-list-lies-and-disputed-stories-nbc-news-let-brian-williams-tell-for-a-decade/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used Nick012000 (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The article does not state that MSNBC is "fake news" and Breitbart is a noted purveyor of fabrications, misstatements, exaggerations and outright lies about its political opponents, and is therefore not considered a reliable source for anything except the opinion of its own writers. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The talk page up-thread explicitly said that Breitbart was not Fake News, and that makes them a Reliable Source. That you don't believe them to be reliable is an amazing act of political bias. They're more Reliable than CNN is! They've been right about Trump from the very beginning! Nick012000 (talk) 09:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Er, no. They may not be "fake news" but that doesn't make them a reliable source for Wikipedia's purposes. See the extensive discussions on the reliable sources noticeboard. I suggest you stop edit-warring and work to gain consensus for your proposed edits. Further edit-warring is likely to lead to a block. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Shit like this? This is why people claim that Wikipedia is politically biased. All of the charges that you leveled against Breitbart can be leveled against every pro-Hillary news station, including CNN and MSNBC.Nick012000 (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, shit like this, where Breitbart libeled an innocent USDA employee, Shirley Sherrod. That's why we ignore Breitbart — they have a long and sordid history of it. You're welcome to open a new discussion on WP:RSN if you disagree with that longstanding consensus. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Breitbart himself died years ago. It's run by entirely different people now, and it's not like MSNBC is any better. You know, like the article I just linked, that details one of MSNBC's news anchors lying repeatedly over a decade. Basically, calling Breitbart unreliable while calling CNN or MSNBC reliable amounts to political censorship. Nick012000 (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we tend to view left-wing sites such as Media Matters through a similar lens in that they are generally considered reliable only for the opinions of their writers. A key difference is that while Media Matters is certainly left-biased, it doesn't have a sordid record of publishing fabrications and lies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 10:25, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay then. I guess you'll be fine with me going around systematically deleting any cited source linked to MSNBC and CNN, then, because they wouldn't be reliable, either? Both of them are worse than Breitbart is, and that's not something that anyone who's not drinking their kool-aid can deny. Nick012000 (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

"Found a Breitbart article that demonstrates that MSNBC is a Fake News source." My irony meter has just pegged its needle and burst into flames. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Does Infowars really belong on this list?
Infowars isn't a fake news site in the sense that they don't intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic. Instead, they actually believe the stuff they write. It's a real news site. Granted, it's a crap news site, but being wrong isn't the same thing as being fake. Or perhaps the article should be reframed as a list of fake and bad news sites or something? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 18:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It has 3 references from reliable sources calling it "Fake News" - so yes, it should be on the list. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:06, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, I saw that. But that doesn't address the issue that I raise. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:14, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Then take it up with the newspapers that wrote the articles calling Infowars "Fake News" Exemplo347 (talk) 19:16, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Which source specifically says that Infowars intentionally publishes hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic? Even is such a source existed, just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article.  We can exercise editorial discretion in choosing the best sources and best information for our readers.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I added infowars back to this list after it had been removed. When it was removed, it only had one weak reference. Now there are several, and I had no intention of adding it unless more reliable sources appeared. The best source here is CBS news, which includes Infowars in a gallery. If you see above, I think that there is need for a List of yellow journalism websites or some other variation than outright fake to be enumerated as a list like this one. Right now, reputable sources call infowars a fake site.Victor Grigas (talk) 20:40, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The thing is that the CBS News source isn't a particularly good source. It's only a gallery with a single sentence about Infowars.  That's hardly thoughtful, in-depth converge.  If you look up the definition of the word "fake", it means a thing that is not genuine; a forgery or sham; counterfeit.  Alex Jones is a well-known conspiracy theorist.  He's probably the most famous (or infamous) conspiracy theorist in the world.  WP:BLP prohibits me from saying what I really think of Jones, but he genuinely believes in the things that he says.  Being wrong is not the same thing as being fake.  Am I the only one who's bothered that Infowars is being mischaracterized?  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:48, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop pretending that CBS News is the only source for this, it's disingenuous. There are a large number of sources. I'll list a few and I look forward to you saying that none of them are good enough for you to believe them: New York Times, US News, Chicago Tribune and Vanity Fair. There are many more, I suggest you have a look around for yourself. Regards Exemplo347 (talk) 00:20, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @ Exemplo347: Huh??? You were the one who recommended CBS News as the best source, did you forget? In any case, the NY Times article doesn't seem to mention Infowars, the US News article is trivial coverage, the Tribune article is an opinion piece, the Vanity Fair article doesn't actually say InfoWars is a fake news site.  Instead, "fake news" seems to be a reference to Mike Flynn and Mike Flynn Jr, ("Mike Flynn, a retired Army lieutenant general with his own penchant for spreading fake news and propaganda", "His [Mike Flynn Jr] long history of sharing fake news stories online..." and none of them says that InfoWars intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic.  In fact, if you dig deeper, the US News article actually cites fakenewswatch.com which categorizes InfoWars as a clickbait website, not a fake news site.
 * In any case, you've made several replies to my original post, and not once have you actually addressed the issue that I raised, so let me repeat it:
 * Infowars isn't a fake news site in the sense that they don't intentionally publish hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic. Instead, they actually believe the stuff they write. It's a real news site.  Granted, it's a crap news site, but being wrong isn't the same thing as being fake.  Or perhaps the article should be reframed as a list of fake and bad news sites or something?
 * A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:19, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Ok, this answer Directly Addresses Your Question and I won't be repeating myself again. You've asked if it belongs on the list. I've said yes, because reliable sources call it "Fake News." It's straightforward really. Your contention that Infowars isn't fake news is Original Research and has no place on Wikipedia. You've read through the sources and formed a conclusion yourself - see WP:SYNTH and WP:NOTTRUTH Exemplo347 (talk) 18:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * @Exemplo347: You don't have to repeat yourself. You just need to start addressing the issue.  Let me ask for the third time, which source specifically says that Infowars intentionally publishes hoaxes and disinformation to drive web traffic?  None of the sources you cite actually say this.
 * You seem to be confused by Wikipedia's guideline on reliability. Reliability is not a binary, on/off switch.  The sources you cite aren't particularly good.  Some don't mention InfoWars, are opinion articles or only provide trivial coverage.
 * So, again, you don't have to repeat yourself. You need to address the points I am raising.  Do you think you can do this? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, you also seem to be confused by Wikipedia's policy on original research. WP:OR is where you add material to an article that isn't sourced (or at least not reliably sourced).  I'm not suggesting we add anything to the article.  Rather, I'm suggesting we remove InfoWars for lack of good sourcing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * BTW, you also seem to be confused by Wikipedia's policy on original research. WP:OR is where you add material to an article that isn't sourced (or at least not reliably sourced).  I'm not suggesting we add anything to the article.  Rather, I'm suggesting we remove InfoWars for lack of good sourcing. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 20:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion about what exactly *is* the definition of a 'fake news website'. Plenty of people in the wild, and here on the talkpages, think that any website which ever publishes something THEY personally believe is false, counts as 'fake news' because fake==false==untrue==QED. The trouble with that, obviously, is that there is a big difference between being PURPOSELY FALSE with intent to defraud readership and advertising-infrastructure-firms out of money for clicks, and being biased / yellow journalism / similar. MSNBC is a biased website. FOX is a biased website. Breitbart is a heavily biased website, but they are not a fake news website, and has been correctly removed from the list.

We have several examples of websites in the list now which use URL-squatting techniques for domain names in Colombia, and purposely pretend to be 'NBC' or some other mainstream (albeit biased) news website. That is a clear example of a 'fake news website'. So the question is, where does that leave InfoWars? For starters, it is a real website. It is not a trojan horse website, or a phishing website, or a website which pretends to be 'NBC' or something like that. People that visit InfoWars, know they are visiting InfoWars. It is a corporation, with named owners, and does business in a legitimate fashion. The main business that InfoWars is involved with, is best characterized as Extreme Talk Radio; they are particularly targeting readership/listenership who believe in aliens (cf Coast to Coast), and specifically targeting people who believe in anti-establishment conservative issues (cf Breitbart but vastly more extreme). Plus a bunch of other conspiracy theories of all stripes: conspiracy of banks, conspiracy of government officials, conspiracy of rich people, conspiracy of aliens (see previous), conspiracy of the mainstream media, et cetera, etc, etc.

So what is the difference? Here is a legit Breitbart articlewww.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/12/08/exclusive-house-conservatives-rally-behind-rep-mick-mulvaney-for-trumps-omb-chief/ breitbart.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used which talks about a possible cabinet-level appointment of Mick Mulvaney who is a Rand Paul-faction-conservative that joined the House Freedom Caucus and helped overthrow John Boehner as speaker, with some straight-reported comments by sitting House Leader and the guy who *almost* replaced Boehner, before Paul Ryan stepped in to take that dirty job, saying that Mulvaney would be a great OMB appointee. Breitbart doesn't give any theory on why estab-repub McCarthy, is endorsing Mulvaney, but reading between the lines (and knowing the factional loyalties of Pete Sessions who is also quoted), the establishment-aka-centrist-repubs are hoping that tea-and-liberty-faction Mulvaney will take the executive branch job and get out of their hair in the legislative branch. The same thing over on InfoWars, would have all kinds of conspiracy theories, as to *why* McCarthy was REALLY endorsing Mulvaney, his sworn intra-party-factional-opponent.

Here is a good example of the kind of story that InfoWars publishes, all the time: "Obama to Expand Modern-Day Slave Trade With TPP".www.infowars.com/obama-to-expand-modern-day-slave-trade-with-tpp/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used  Once you have clicked the conspiracy-headline, you see that the subtitle is only slighly less conspiratorial:  "President inviting slave-trading countries to join trade agreement." And when you read the body-prose, you learn that there is a significant amount of illegal human trafficking in the Thailand, and that there was a tussle between Obama D-IL and Menedez D-NJ over whether to insist that Thailand be excluded from TPP because of the high number of incidents, or whether to include them on the condition that concrete steps to reduce human trafficking were put in place. Obama won, and Menendez removed his poison-pill legislative rider from the TPP, according to the story. Of course, those bare factoids are couched in the most corrosive sort of language, with plenty of room for people who WANT to believe that Obama is in favor of slave-trading, to confirm their preconceived beliefs. That said, there is not much there, obviously, besides yellow journalism and clickbait aimed at ultra conservatives. For a similar example of headline clickbait, aimed at liberals who wnat to justify *their* extant worldview: "Donald Trump Building Team of Racists" from November 18th, which is when Trump made his first cabinet-pick, who is a sitting senator.  Or maybe that is 'mainstream' liberal viewpoint, and the 'ultra' liberal viewpoint would be something harping about wealth qua wealth.

What are the conspiracy-oriented-conservative stories, that are currently most popular at InfoWars, as I learned when I read the piece about human trafficking? Well surprise, surprise, the fake news controversy is MANA FROM HEAVEN for the owners of InfoWars, because all their predictions of a global conspiracy to silence them just came true. #1. "CIA Election Report Is FAKE NEWS To Attack Trump & Russia"  2315 Comments. #2. "Rogue CIA Calls For New Election, Could Lead To Trump Assassination." 1639 Comments. #3. "MSM Caught in Massive 'Fake News' Smear Against Alex Jones.  1194 Comments.  #4.  "Mitt Romney Is Out, Rex Tillerson Is In, I Told You So!"  986 Comments.  #5.  "Town Fights Back After ACLU Lawsuit Challenges Christmas Tree-topper."  904 Comments.

Three out of the top five stories, are about the fake news controversy. All of them have over a thousand comments, each. More important than government conspiracy to suppress christianity, more important than establishment-faction republicans like Romney getting a cabinet post, is the trilogy of stories about how THERE REALLY IS actually a conspiracy to censor InfoWars. Therefore, I can say with a perfectly straight face, those of you here who want to see Alex Jones become a multimillionaire, those of you that want to make the kind of rhetoric found at InfoWars more and more popular, then you should bend every wikipedia policy you can think of, and keep this list-icle with infowars at the very top of the page. To be frank, InfoWars does not need any help from wikipedia editors -- according to alexa, they are the #1 conservative-leaning political website in the world. Slate is the #1 liberal-leaning political website in the world, also according to Alexa. And what is the difference between Slate, and InfoWars? About 6% from what I can tell: Slate predicted that Hillary Clinton had an 81% chance of winning, whereas InfoWars predicted that Donald Trump had an 87% chance of winning.www.infowars.com/political-science-prof-trump-has-87-of-winning-the-election/ infowars.com is fringe, does not meet our sourcing guidelines and should not be used

Thus, I strongly suggest removing InfoWars from the list here, per IAR. Yes, there are sources which claim it is 'fake news' and yes, there is some basis to that claim, but wikipedia needs to be better than "some basis" because there is also some bias to that claim. Take out InfoWars from this list, and preferably, get rid of the list-icle, entirely and forever, delete and salt. It is NOT going to help improve wikipedia, because there is no firm definition of fake news (one that will not be changing tomorrow as it morphs into something else). It is a transient slang topic, which we ought to cover by disambiguating amongst the various things it can mean. As with 'fascosphere' the definition is primarily encapsulated in the category of we-dislike-them-very-badly. It is a moving target, in other words, and under some variants of the definition, any website with conservative views or Republican party views is 'fake' news. Wikipedia is not in that business, and needs to stay out of that business. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It appears that most editors believe InfoWars should be removed. Would anyone else like to weigh in before we remove it?
 * What a bizarre conclusion. Only two people have said it should be removed - yourself and an IP editor. Is that really "most"? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have started a Request for Comment discussion regarding this issue. Please do not remove the entry from the list until a consensus has been reached for its removal. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:52, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I vote remove. Jdm64 (talk) 03:31, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * if we want a vote, then let's have a formal vote (I would vote keep at this point because there are enough reliable sources calling it fake news).Victor Grigas (talk) 13:55, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a Request for Comment discussion ongoing about this issue, currently at the bottom of this page. Exemplo347 (talk) 13:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Satire that has been misunderstood
I think that all the satire sites on this list need to be removed, satire always has the potential to be misinterpreted. Case in point - http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/27/world/asia/north-korea-china-onion/ this page ought to be only for sites that have a record of publishing outright falsehoods, not for comedic purpose, we have a list of satire sites for that. Thoughts anyone? Victor Grigas (talk) 00:24, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Sagecandor (talk) 00:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And how do you determine if it is "real fake news"? Seems to me that many of these fake news sites are (in fact) just people taking the mick, and seeing how far they go.Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think that we determine if it is a fake news site by if one or many reliable sources make that claim, I don't know how else it should be made, but am open to ideas. (Also what does 'taking the mick' mean? Forgive my ignorance please)Victor Grigas (talk) 13:36, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
 * (I believe they were speaking about some broadcaster taking the mic[rophone], aka people who want to see how far they can push the broadcasting-envelope, before getting pulled off the air.) As for your bigger question, what is the scope of 'list of fake news websites' ... well that is a doozy.  I suggest that the question is unanswerable, because the topic is permanently fluid -- it is a slang term, meaning the equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT.  Somebody wants to add MSNBC to the list, up above.  Not because they are a 'fake news website' in the sense that www.msnbc.com.co is a purposely fake-news-website (impersonation), but in the sense that sometimes MSNBC says false or biased things.  Quite a few somebodies want to keep InfoWars (and re-insert Breitbart), because again the claim is they sometimes say false or biased things.  Plenty of people are insisting that government funded comment trolls 'count' as a fake-news-website, despite the obvious category jump.  Plenty of people want to categorize RT.com as a fake-news-website, again despite the obvious category jump.  That is the problem in a nutshell:  *because* fake-news-website is just a slang term with no fixed meaning, it is morphing out of control to encompass all sorts of stupid stuff.  There is no mention of the Weekly World News or the less-egregious National Enquirer websites here -- why not?  Where is List of crappy grocery-store tabloid 'news' websites?  There is not one, because it is a stupid non-category for a non-topic.  We have an article on tabloid journalism.  We have articles on exemplars that are historically significant, such as WWN.  That is where I firmly hope this list-icle eventually goes, aka to the big deletion-bin in the wiki-sky.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Comment moved from top of Talk page to here
Rabble.ca - an activist fake news outlet that inflates numbers to make their left wing pals look more powerful. Stories are blatantly twisted to cast them in a positive light. Violent criminals are haled as heros. Protest numbers are larger than other media reports. This website lies through omission and seldomly is ever critical of it's own faction, the extreme left. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xtofury (talk • contribs) 03:39, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I've moved this comment from the top of the talk page to here. Exemplo347 (talk) 08:08, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Please put links to site so easier to read
As I know this list is purely sour grapes from the Trump election, I thought I'd find some really good sites that just make the blood boil of some Wikipedia editors. However, it would help if you just had a list with simple links to each site.

Because after all - with so much in Wikipedia being blatantly false, it's arguable Wikipedia should be added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.26.37 (talk) 12:22, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is a wiki, which is defined by being a website having collaborative modification of its information. This means that Wikipedia itself is unreliable, but not in the sense that it is "mostly false". edits are made every day to prevent false information being added.
 * As for your other suggestion, to put links to each website, it is currently being considered. Evking22 (talk) 14:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, we should not be putting *live* links to external websites, into this page. It is against the manual of style, but more importantly, WP:BEANS and WP:ADVERT both apply.  This is supposed to be a list of intentionally fraudulent websites that pretend to be journalistic outlets but actually just make shit up as a means to attract clickbait.  Wikipedia should NOT be linking to msnbc.co for hapless readers to click upon.  Wikipedia also does not qualify as a fake-news-website, because the information shown here is not intentionally-false-with-intent-to-defraud.  There *is* a lot of "information" here which is wrong, or biased, because anybody-can-edit means that all sorts of wrong and biased information gets added, more or less constantly.  Just because something is 'sourced' does not mean it is unbiased, obviously!  See the discussions at the parent-article, Talk:Fake news website, especially the rename-to-just-fake-news discussion.
 * So for those of you reading the current list, and correctly noting that at least SOME of the websites are of the sour grapes variety, or of the anti-sour-grapes variety, please DO NOT therefore believe that all the websites listed are something you want to click upon. There are in fact, about twenty of the websites here which are purely scams, and visiting websites run by pure scammers can get your electronics instantly infected with malware (even when you have antivirus software installed in some instances).  I don't have any evidence that the ACTUAL clickbait-scam websites currently listed here in this article are hosting malware, but sooner or later one of the scam-site-owners WILL think of it.  And as for the article here... it is worth pointing out that wikipedia has no malware websites article, nor do we have list of malware websites, especially not one with live outgoing links.  Sheesh.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So create one. Step up - become the solution to the problem you are facing. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:48, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I must be misunderstanding you. Can you possibly be suggesting that we *ought* to want List of malware websites to be a bluelink, with live ELs connecting our unsuspecting readership directly to the malware?  That is a terrible idea, and against guidelines, see WP:ELNO #3 for example.  What are you trying to say here?  That you want me to file the AfD for this list-article again?  Please be more explicit in what you are suggesting.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The Clone Zone
Would The Clone Zone qualify for this list?

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/us/fake-new-york-times-article-claims-elizabeth-warren-endorsed-bernie-sanders.html

It allows users to make copies of any site, including news sites, and has resulted in fake news, but is not exclusively a fake news distributor. I'm split about whether to include it or not.

Victor Grigas (talk) 15:05, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It should not be added, until there are some proper categorizations added (as opposed to just one gigantic table lumping every site on the list with every other). It is in the 'somewhat related to fake news websites' category, since it can be abused to produce fake news and/or even to produce fake news websites.  But just as the sword manufacturer is not directly at fault in the future battle between samurai warlords, the site-cloning-tool is not at fault for being (ab)used to create fake news.  There are some legit uses for site-cloning, such as making mockups for a site-redesign-pitch, or certain kinds of offline demos like you might use for seeking venture capitalist funding, but there are a LOT of ways to abuse such a tool, e.g. cloning a bank-website as part of a phishing-website scam.  I consider it to be in roughly the same ontological category as Infowars.com, which as a conspiracy-theory-oriented website has plenty of false news and a small percentage of fake news, but does not fit the narrow definition of an intentionally fabricated and deliberately falsified website, which only tends to exist temporarily as a clickbait scam.  Thus both conspiracy-theory websites and site-cloning-tools have 'some overlap' with narrowly-defined fake-news-websites.  For a related type of situation, which is also *not* really a fake-news-website even though some fake-news-stories have been produced using the technology, see React365 as documented at snopes.com's list of fake-news-websites in early November 2016, which is a kind of meme-generator ('prank your friends').  There is not any clickbait involved methinks, it just spits out imagefiles that can be passed around on social media, which makes it a borderline case.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Disputed
I object to the concept of a "Disputed" section, at least as currently framed, as it implies a false equivalence between reliable and unreliable sources in violation of our neutrality guideline as well as our verifiability policy. If reliable sources call a website a fake news website, but the website says it's not fake, then the website belongs in the "fake" category, not some wishy-washy "disputed" category that ignores bedrock Wikipedia principles. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, I object to the distinction between "Self-admitted" fake sites and other fake sites for the same reason. Whether a site admits fakery is of little to no relevance to our verifiability policy. Either the reliable, independent sources say a site is a fake news site, or they don't. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If a website says that it's not fake, then it's relevant (but not insurmountable) evidence that the site does not intentionally fabricate news articles, a necessary qualification for inclusion under my criteria. Due to the many definitions of "fake news" floating around, a classification based on what WP:RS call "fake news" is going to run into the same WP:LSC/WP:NPOV problems that caused the deletion of List of legal loopholes, as this talk page readily illustrates.  RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 23:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing to WP:LSC. That guideline is quite explicit that inclusion where the membership criteria are subjective or likely to be disputed should be based on reliable sources. A website deemed a fake news website by independent reliable sources isn't anything close to a reliable source per our criteria. So, while it might be admissible evidence in a court of law, it has no place in this determination. I could see it being placed in a footnote, since it is useful information that we would typically include in a non-list article. (No need to ping me.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The creation of a "Disputed" section seems to me to be an attempt to side-step the ongoing Request for Comment discussion - after all, it was created by an editor who already tried to move Infowars from this list twice while the RfC discussion was still going and once before that. Personally I'm all for completely removing the "disputed" section. In fact, the only reason I didn't roll back the whole thing is that other users have made edits since this RfC-side-stepping section was added. Exemplo347 (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I agree with Dr. Fleishman and Exemplo347 that these distinctions are not important enough to chop the list up into different sections. (Self-admissions can go in a "notes" column). As an interim measure I've made it clear that "dispute" does not mean that the sites' status as fake news is disputed among experts/journalists, but is in fact merely the sites' own denials. Neutralitytalk 16:36, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My last grumble about this before I drop the stick - there are no citations or references included from reliable sources that state these sites dispute their being called "fake news" - this section was created purely out of disrespect for the RFC process. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 January 2017
Washington Post is not fake and is a respected news outlet. 64.138.198.65 (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

✅ - It was a frivolous, agenda-pushing edit made without consensus. Exemplo347 (talk) 12:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

The Washington Post
Forbes has stated that The Washington Post pushed a news story about Russians hacking a power grid -- which went viral and created a fake news story. The article clearly lays out how The Washington Post updated the story several times with known false and misleading information. Per the definition of fake news provided by The New York Times and PolitiFact, this qualifies The Washington Post to be added to the list. -- Jdm64 (talk) 07:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Does the source say that washingtonpost.com is a fake news website? --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * While the Washington Post story was appallingly bad, Forbes "contributor" content undergoes no substantial fact-checking and little editorial oversight, and is only slightly better than a Wordpress blog. Grayfell (talk) 07:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is exactly my point! One person with a blog creates a list, then that goes viral, then major news sites pick it up or write a similar article. For example, looking at the supposed sources for why InfoWars is listed as fake news, not one of them clearly states that InfoWars is a fake news site. There's an implication that the site has posted some conspiracy stories, and then leaves it up to the reader to form a connection with fake news. The only one that clearly states that InfoWars is fake news is usnews.com, but they use fakenewswatch.com as their source, but it's not a known reliable source! -- Jdm64 (talk) 08:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's your point? I don't get it. We don't need reliable sources to cite reliable sources which cite reliable sources etc., that's untenable. Forbes can be a reliable source, but only when it's content produced by their journalists. This specific article isn't reliable for statements of fact, so it's a dead-end. Likewise, U.S. News & World Report can be reliable depending on context. For that matter, so could fakenewswatch.com, possibly. Part of judging context means that we can determine what a source is saying without being hyper-literal about it. A source doesn't have to use any particular phrase ("fake news") to make a supporting point. Not every basic, straightforward interpretation can be brushed-off as OR. Grayfell (talk) 08:54, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Which is the original point I was trying to make. I don't think you can so easily brush off the link I gave because of context. The author linked to archive.org so you can verify the claims made. The original title of The Post's article was click-bate intended to push the "Russian hacker" propaganda. The core issue is that the definition of fake news is too broad. -- Jdm64 (talk) 09:29, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines don't work that way. If the Forbes article cited a reliable source, we would, instead, cite that source, but that wouldn't make the Forbes article reliable. The conclusions made from the source's sources are what's in question. In this case, those conclusions are not made by Forbes, they are made by Kalev Leetaru through a blog hosted on Forbes' website. This could, maybe, be presented as his opinion with attribution, but that would not be anywhere close to good enough for a statement of fact. To draw conclusions about the quality of the Washington Post's journalist from the Washington Post article itself would be WP:OR. We can't do that. Grayfell (talk) 09:44, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * So Infowars isn't fake news but the Washington Post is? That's interesting. Exemplo347 (talk) 11:21, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * , if there isn't a reliable source saying The Washington Post is a fake news site (there isn't) then we can't say The Washington Post is a fake news site. It's that simple. Time to move on please. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to the article, this is just a list of sites "that have been called fake news." If someone's called it fake news, it belongs in the article. According to the layout of the article, our job is not to determine whether the "fake news" label is valid or not, only identify that it's been applied by someone or something. BlueSalix (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If the phrasing is ambiguous (and I personally don't really think it is) the problem is with the phrasing, not the content it describes. Wikipedia doesn't use unreliable sources for simple statements, so it's understood that we need to hold all content to a higher standard. Simplified phrasing is not a loophole. Grayfell (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Grayfell. The phrasing is fixed by removing the "called" language, which does muddy the water. And I don't think there's a need to explain our verifiability policy to readers. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 17:33, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Inclusion of Infowars in this list
Should the list of fake news websites within this article contain Infowars? Exemplo347 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Note - Can we please keep the responses brief? Walls of text won't help to reach a consensus. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:58, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Responses

 * Support (as Proposer) - The entry for Infowars on this list is well supported by citations and references (none of which were provided by me!). Exemplo347 (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Note - I'm sure I don't need to remind experienced editors that these discussions are not a vote. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The entry for Infowars on this list on no more well supported than Breitbart. With the bar set so low we might as well put on the list; the outlets that are the purveyors of fake news from sources such as Brian Williams and Megan Kelly of Fox News for that matter as she completely distorted the "pizzagate" story involving Infowars host Alex Jones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.219.167.240 (talk) 18:44, 17 December 2016‎ (UTC)
 * The closing administrator should disregard this vote; the IP user has only two edits, both to this talk page, and makes no policy-relevant point. Neutralitytalk 16:40, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The policy-relevant point is that, despite crappy sourcing saying otherwise, there is a standing consensus that breitbart.com does NOT belong on the List of fake news websites. The sourcing on whether infowars.com belongs is more numerous, but includes those same crappy sources as a subset.  Closing admin may wish to skim Talk:List_of_fake_news_websites/Archive_1, before discounting the point about WP:NOTEWORTHY being made by 47.219.167.240 methinks.  And despite the numerical similarity, they are not me, and I am not them, nor do I have any idea who they are or contact of any sort, outside of this comment I'm about to save.  We do mention breitbart indirectly, in a ref-title.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 14:50, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No It should not include InfoWars. The article is supposed to list websites which intentionally publish hoaxes.  InfoWars is a conspiracy site.  It's utter rubbish, but it doesn't intentionally publish hoax stories.  The authors of that site genuinely believe the nonsense that they write. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which WP:RS make this point? We have multiple reliabel sources identifying it as fake news, if you want to include a rebuttal you can, provided you can source it. Guy (Help!) 12:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Infowars on the list. Enough reliable sources labeling it fake news. Victor Grigas (talk) 14:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No - There are citations, but they don't all call it a fake news site. It's discussed in connection with stories linked to fake news, and in proximity to discussion of fake news, but as far as I can see only the two that pulled names from Zimdars's list make the explicit connection. A third talks about others calling InfoWars fake news, but cites no source (likely Zimdars et al. -- and the Washington Times is not itself a great source of generalized commentary about the misdeeds of "the mainstream media" anyway). With all the coverage this is getting, and the amount of coverage InfoWars gets, we need more than that initial list. Same as Breitbart. &mdash; <span style="font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Rhododendrites <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk  \\ 17:10, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources use Infowars as an example while discussing fake news sites. There are lso statements such as "I you’ve opened up a newspaper, turned on the TV, or logged onto the Internet over the past few months, you’ve likely encountered a discussion about the scourge of “fake news.” Web sites like InfoWars, which published countless false stories suggesting Hillary Clinton was running a child-sex-slave ring out of a D.C.-area pizzeria" or "Liberty Writers News, Alex Jones’s Info Wars, and Ending the Fed are among a group of websites that rose in popularity among Donald Trump’s supporters during the 2016 presidential election. But these same sites have been called out as fake news, spreading lies and conspiracy theories – such as Pope Francis’ endorsement of Trump, Hillary Clinton’s supply of weapons to the Islamic State, and various murder-suicides of Mrs. Clinton’s staffers – without any of journalism's traditional fact-checking." Salon says: "the Trump propaganda machine is not top-down. While sites like Infowars and Breitbart News — major hubs for the right-wing hoax stories created by these fake journalists — are heavily linked to the incoming Trump administration, they are technically independent organizations." It's hard not to conclude that these sources are characterising Infowars explicitly as a fake news site. Guy (Help!) 15:05, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No, given the lack of reliable sources showing intentional fabrication of stories by Infowars. RJaguar3 &#124; u &#124; t 17:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No - InfoWars does not fall under the definition of "fake" news. There's no evidence that they mislead users into believing something that they themselves don't believe. Jdm64 (talk) 04:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No There isn't intentional misleading of people into believing that something false is real news. They're just conspiracy theories, not fake news. <sub style="border:1px solid #3333ff;padding:1px;"> Adotchar | reply here  02:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand your opinion of what fake news means. The reliable independent sources use a more elastic definition, one which encompasses publication of blatantly false stories spread without regard to their objective truth. And that is unarguably what Infowars does. Guy (Help!) 17:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, U.S. News says that Infowars spreads misinformation deliberately. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:18, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Aye, they do that too. But much of the bullshit they publish, they simply don't care whether it's true or not. Like Breitbart only worse. Guy (Help!) 14:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep Infowars on the list Alex Jones is promoting many false pro-Nazi conspiracy theories on Infowars. Infowars is fake news. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 01:10, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. The content is supported by several highly reliable sources that say that Infowars is a fake news website, and I haven't seen any reliable sources that say otherwise. Therefore, the content is verifiable. Several of the editors !voting "no" here seem to be unfamiliar with this policy. (Several other cited sources do not explicitly support the content and should be pruned.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Per the definition provided by The New York Times and PolitiFact, InfoWars is not fake news. Are those reliable sources? Per their definition, a fake news site is one that knowingly spreads fabricated content. I've seen no source that verifiably proves that InfoWars knows that they are spreading fabricated content. If we allow InfoWars to stay then we are contradicting our/their definition. Jdm64 (talk) 04:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. The US News source says InfoWars is a propaganda site that deliberately spreads misinformation. That meets the NY Times/PolitiFact definition. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 07:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The problem is that US News only lists InfoWars because it's on the list created by fakenewswatch.com, which is just a random site someone made. Did you even read the article? They talk about fake news in general then give a partial list from fakenewswatch.com. You made the correlation that US News stated that InfoWars deliberately spreads misinformation. -- Jdm64 (talk)
 * Yes, I read the article. It's not clear that U.S. News only lists InfoWars because it's on the list created by fakenewswatch.com, and to the extent that that's why US News included them, it's safe to assume that U.S. News vetted fakenewswatch.com and deemed it reliable. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * DrFleischman, if you will examine the archive.org history of fakenewswatch.com, and compare it (after eliding sites with low number of facebook likes), you will see that the USNews piece was exactly that: a subset of the fakenewswatch list, stripped of low-like-count sites, nothing more.  Oh, and with a clickbait title slapped onto the shortlist:  "avoid at all costs!!!!!111!!"  The publication meets WP:RS for most cases, but this particular piece is a bad hill to die on.  I also note that the author of the piece has been a journalist for roughly a year, and previously was a social media executive, and previously-previously a student.  This is weak sourcing, just like the Zimdars-inspired sourcing is weak, and wikipedia should not be relying so heavily on such weak support in mainspace.  We don't treat interview-quotes from guitarists ("I am the greatest bassist evah" the guitarist said) as 'evidence' of the notability of said guitarist, and we should not be treating recycled-listicles ("xyz.com is fake news" according to fakenewswatchdotcom) as 'evidence' here on this article, methinks. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:35, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, keep. The content is supported by several highly reliable sources that directly characterize it as fake news. Nuances or alternate/other characterizations (e.g., "conspiracy theory") can go in the "notes" section. Also, the closing administrator should disregard most or all of the "no" comments, since they do not address the multiple reliable sources that back up the inclusion and are not policy-based. Neutralitytalk 16:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes. We have reliable independent sources that identify Infowars as a fake news website. We cannot, per WP:NOR, substitute our own judgment that it does not meet some arbitrary definition of fake news and should therefore be excluded. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, keep. Obviously. Identified as fake news by numerous RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep Whether the authors believe their conspiracy theories or not doesn't change the fact that the 'news' they publish is usually fake. Also, the title of this RfC is confusing: It asks if we should remove Infowars from the list, but then the question is whether to keep infowars on the list. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  14:56, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * My fault - sorted. Exemplo347 (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * No. I prefer the stronger definition of "fake news", similar to how our internal guidelines define use of WP:FAKE references as a much more serious allegation than merely unreliable or biased ones. The sources calling Infowars fake do not appear to make such a distinction. 97.81.188.95 (talk) 17:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Your preference is unworkable then there would be no sources, and therefore no list. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Exclude. I haven't seen a reliable source saying that Infowars publishes "deliberately fabricated stories." Like others have said, the owners of this website genuinely believe the nonsense they publish. Perhaps this belongs on another article would list conspiracy media outlets. FallingGravity 03:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You're mistaken. The U.S. News source says Infowars deliberately spreads misinformation. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 05:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There are reliable independent sources that explicitly call Infowars a fake news site. Denying this, is pointless. I have yet to see any sources that analyse whether it is a fake news site and come tot he conclusion that it is not; if such exist then that would be a reason to discuss the disputed definition (which we can do in a list without any problem). Supplanting what RSs say with our own perosnal view on what does or does not meet the criteria we personally think should be used, is WP:OR and forbidden by policy. A policy-valid argument to exclude based on WP:UNDUE would be defensible, but one based on your personal view of what is and is not a fake news site, is not. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There is at least one, thus far. Has about the same standing as Zimdars, who we heavily depend upon as 'reliable' in the wikipedia sense for our list-icle here. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep based on reliable sources that have been provided in the article, including US News and CBS News. They all label Infowars as "fake news." I get that some other editors consider it a "conspiracy theory" website instead, but if mainstream reliable sources don't say that, it's original research. I wasn't able to turn up any sites that says Infowars is not "fake news." Without reliable sources that do not consider the website fake news (not just editors' personal determinations), then it should be included. FuriouslySerene (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia definitely says in wikivoice that infowars.com is a conspiracy theorist's website. And per WP:PROMO we do not have a dedicated article on the site, just a redirect to the BLP.  WGBH, the local PBS/NPR affiliate in Boston, has an assoc journalism prof at Northeastern University writing a news-piece that InfoWars is 'false news' but not 'fake news'.  See also my comments below, about the need to upmerge this entire list-article into the parent, where more context can be provided.  I also think that *listing* websites like ABCnews.com.co is borderline-WP:PROMO for clickbait scammers, and that *those* ought to also be upmerged into the parent fake news website article on the conceptual topic, but that is another discussion.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 13:27, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Threaded Discussion

 * Comment We might need a concrete definition of "fake news" because right now it's mostly a buzzword. I think we could go with The Washington Post's definition "deliberately fabricated stories". FallingGravity 20:16, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The definition of 'fake news' is not as important as the definition of 'fake news website'. NYT says "Narrowly defined, 'fake news' means a made-up story with an intention to deceive, often geared toward getting clicks."  It is possible to have 'false news' on a legit website, and it is possible for mostly-legit websites like twitter to be a propagation-vector for both 'false news' as well as 'fake news' ... but the only way to be considered a 'fake news website' is to deliberately manufacture fake stories, then falsely pretend they are true, with intent to defraud via that specific type of clickbait scam.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Definition of Fake News - I think the safest course is to go with what reliable sources call "fake news" - anything else strays right into the middle of "Original Research" territory. Exemplo347 (talk) 21:31, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with the sentiment of sticking to sources to avoid OR but after reading about "fake news" I conclude that's not what Alex Jones does. He has an entirely different shtick. The sources are wrong in that regard, which is unfortunate. Chris Troutman  ( talk ) 23:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Exemplo347, and what are the sources saying the definition of 'fake news' is, exactly? As Chris troutman points out, one source's fake-news is another source's biased-and-incorrect-news-but-not-deliberately-falsified (contrast with the slightly distinct concept of errata).  And more importantly, since this article is about 'fake news websites' and not really about 'fake news' the broad metaphor, what is the definition of a 'fake news website' according to the sources?  See NYT and WaPo definitions up above, in the first discussion-comment.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 23:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not the job of Wikipedia editors to assess what Reliable Sources are publishing. That's Original Research. If we as editors pick & choose a definition that suits our beliefs, the integrity of the encyclopaedia suffers. Exemplo347 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * NYT says www.facebook.com currently contains "misinformation" and suffers from a role in propagating a veritable "tide of fake news". Does that mean we can add www.facebook.com to the list, as a 'fake news website'?  Or does that mean, you are wrong when you assert that wikipedians should just ram any website that any reliable source says has 'fake news' contained therein, onto our list-icle here?  I believe 100% that the NYT is 100% correct there are fake news stories currently on www.facebook.com -- but because I understand the *definition* of 'fake news website' there is no urge for me to add that URL to this list-article. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 00:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree we should pick a definition. I don't, however, feel that we should CREATE a definition. One should be chosen from an existing Reliable Source. Exemplo347 (talk) 00:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But that's exactly what you're advocating. You have yet to produce any quality sources, let alone a majority of reliable sources, which actually state that InfoWars intentionally publishes hoax stories.  WP:SYNTH expressly forbids drawing conclusions based on an editor's own personal conclusions not actually stated by the sources.  A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * AQFK, while I agree with you about the lack of intent being key (which is almost impossible to prove beyond a reasonable doubt except in the most clearcut cases such as 70news and DenverGuardian), the overall problem is not so clear-cut. Exemplo347 is arguing for the normal use of sources:  if source X says that website Y contains quote 'fake news' unquote, then as long as source X is WP:RS then we have a WP:NOTEWORTHY factoid, other things being equal.  The problem is that quite a few of the sources are using *differing definitions* of what the phrase 'fake news' actually means.  And furthermore, there is a lot of conflation between the concept of a 'fake news website' (msnbc.co) and the distinct concept of 'a website which contains fake news' (which of course includes (msnbc.co but also includes facebook ... and depending on the source's political bias might include MSNBC for a right-leaning-partisan source and might include FOX News for a left-leaning partisian source!).  So we have the Zimdar 'source' (she later retracted her list) which tars not just InfoWars but also Breitbart and even ReState as being 'fake news' ... but if you read Zimdar's fine print, it just say that type-3-fake-news-per-Zimdar websites are those which "tend to have clickbait-y headlines" but otherwise do not publish falsehoods, let alone deliberate falsehoods.  Only by the type-1-fake-news-websites-per-Zimdar would belong in our wikipedia article, if we were being strict about definitional issues.  (InfoWars she classified in two categories -- and a lot of her classifications were not in ANY categories which people reporting on her work later retracted before Zimdar herself retracted all her categorizations.)  So it si a pretty fine mess.  But I am sympathetic to the point Exemplo347 is impliciting making:  if we do NOT take what sources say at face value, then we ARE in dire risk of committing WP:OR, whereas if we DO take what sources say at face value -- especially if we are cavalier about definitional issues -- they we are also screwing up.  I also think that having a list of URLs that we *know* are not merely places where incorrect information is found, but are in fact very often clickbait scams, is Just The Wrong Thing for wikipedia to be even doing.  I don't have any easy answers here, but see Talk:Fake news website for some definitional discussions, especially the comments in the no-consensus RfC.  47.222.203.135 (talk) 20:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I encourage people to read Chris Troutman's response. You might argue that Infowars is engaged in propaganda, not fake news - thus the site is a participant int he spread of fake news but is not a fake news site as such. That is a perfectly reasonable view. But, as Chris says, the sources call it a fake news site. That may be unfortunate. The sources may indeed be wrong. But it's not our problem to fix through application of our own interpretation of the primary data. Guy (Help!) 15:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

WP:NOR
Remember folks, we do not have to define fake news and decide what sites meet our criteria. We have to review what reliable independent sources say. If all reliable sources that discuss the fake news status of a site agree that it's fake, then we can say that in Wikipedia's voice. If some do but others analyse the claim and dispute it, then we attribute the categorisation and discuss the dissent. That is policy. Guy (Help!) 12:10, 10 January 2017 (UTC)