Talk:TruNews

overlap with Rick Wiles
There is a lot of material that discusses Wiles, not TruNews, and the Wiles article has a substantial section on TruNews already. To avoid a content fork, and unnecessary replication, move material about the company here, and material about Wiles to that article. Vexations (talk) 18:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * hello!! Yes, that is the plan; I started this based on the text in the article on Rick as most of it seemed to focus on the company more than him. I'll be focusing on cleaning this up over the coming days, moving Rick content to his page, and rewriting a lot to focus on TruNews. Feel free to help as you can! Jonmaxras (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by BladeJogger2049 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Note: I changed the signature on the comment directly above to the user account that made the edit. Schazjmd   (talk)  20:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

I was reviewing the article to see if the unfocused template could be removed, and decided to leave it in place. The article content goes back and forth between TruNews did this... and He said that..., treating TruNews and Wiles as one entity. Until the body is rewritten to focus specifically on TruNews rather than Wiles personally, the template should remain. Schazjmd  (talk)  20:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Short description
As established by the reliable sources cited in the article and the content of the article, TruNews is a conspiracy theory and fake news website. The words "conspiracy theory and fake news", which were removed from the short description in Special:Diff/1109092105, should be restored to the short description. —  Newslinger  talk   22:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Why is it considered a conspiracy theory?
TruNews isn't a conspiracy theory, they only talk about things people consider a conspiracy theory. And it isn't "Fake News", if a news channel got the weather wrong is it fake news then? It's just an opinion that it is fake news since people don't like the news, isn't Wikipedia supposed to be unbiased? JoeyDarks11 (talk) 00:33, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * That TruNews publishes "Conspiracy theories" is supported by a number of wp:reliable sources. As this content has been in the article since its creation, please do not remove without obtaining wp:consensus. See wp:BRD. Adakiko (talk) 23:36, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 * "Conspiracy theories"

It's not a fake news website or a conspiracy theory
It's not a conspiracy theory itself its a news website, and for it to be called a "Fake News Website" they would have to deliberately publish news they know is fake, which isn't the case since TruNews isn't deliberately making fake news, although what they do have may be considered fake news. Jazz0005 (talk) 22:18, 10 July 2023 (UTC)


 * 1) If they publish fake news, they're a fake news site. Whether it's "deliberate" or not doesn't really matter. 2) How do you know it's not deliberate? — Czello (music) 08:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
 * In Jazz0005's defense, how do you know it is deliberate? It is easier to prove it is a news website then it is to prove it is deliberately publishing news that they know is fake. The Wikipedia article for Fake news website explains that they have to post news that they know is fake deliberately. TruNews has been around for a really long time, making a hoax website to mess with people with fake information for that long doesn't make a lot of sense. TruNews thinks their news is real but it is fake news. Twoment (talk) 05:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources call it fake, so we do too. Also, WP:QUACK. — Czello (music) 07:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Request for Edit Protection
I am writing to bring attention to the persistent issues of vandalism on this Wikipedia article. Over the past few weeks, there have been many instances of edit warring, and the insertion of inaccurate information by anonymous and unregistered users. Specific examples of recent vandalism include the changing of "fake news website" to "news website". I request that experienced Wikipedia administrators review the situation and consider applying the appropriate level of protection to this article. This measure will help safeguard the article from anonymous users and IP editors who engage in disruptive behavior. Ideally, a semi-protection should suffice to deter casual vandals while still allowing registered and established editors to continue their valuable contributions. Frovell (talk) 02:13, 16 July 2023 (UTC)


 * That's not "vandalism" as wikipedia defines it. It's a content dispute and would be considered distruptive; but that's not vandalism.  I don't think there's enough for semi-protection, but you might be able to justify pending changes protection.  Make sure you're familiar with the policy and then request protection at WP:RFP   Butler Blog   (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @Butlerblog While it's not vandalism, it's not a content dispute either - it's a POV pushing sockpuppeteer removing sourced statements.  Liliana UwU  (talk / contributions) 07:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Fake news website
I have restored the fake news website descriptor in Special:Diff/1195227944 per WP:BRD (previously removed in Special:Diff/1195166164), as the descriptor is well-supported by reliable sources. I've also improved the sourcing for the descriptor. Per WP:NPOV, neutrality on Wikipedia entails "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic", and there is overwhelming agreement among reliable sources that TruNews is a fake news website. Please note that TruNews is listed in List of fake news websites. —  Newslinger  talk   01:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)