Talk:TruNews
This is thetalk pagefor discussing improvements to theTruNewsarticle. This isnot a forumfor general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:Google(books·news·scholar·free images·WP refs)·FENS·JSTOR·TWL |
Thecontentious topicsprocedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has beendesignatedas a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to thepurpose of Wikipedia,any expectedstandards of behaviour,or anynormal editorial processmay be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with thecontentious topics proceduresbefore editing this page. |
This article is ratedC-classon Wikipedia'scontent assessmentscale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
overlap with Rick Wiles
[edit]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)
- Vexationshello!! 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)— Precedingunsignedcomment added byBladeJogger2049(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 betweenTruNews did this...andHe 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
[edit]As established by thereliable sourcescited in the article and the content of the article, TruNews is aconspiracy theoryandfake news website.The words"conspiracy theory and fake news",which were removed from the short description inSpecial:Diff/1109092105,should be restored to the short description. —Newslingertalk22:41, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Why is it considered a conspiracy theory?
[edit]Sock wasting everyone’s time
|
---|
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)
References
|
It's not a fake news website or a conspiracy theory
[edit]The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it.Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
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 forFake news websiteexplains 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)
- 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 forFake news websiteexplains 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)
Request for Edit Protection
[edit]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" aswikipedia defines it.It's a content dispute and would be considereddistruptive;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 withthe policyand then request protection atWP:RFPButlerBlog(talk)03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
- @ButlerblogWhile it's not vandalism, it's not a content dispute either - it's a POV pushing sockpuppeteer removing sourced statements.LilianaUwU(talk/contributions)07:07, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fake news website
[edit]I have restored thefake news websitedescriptor inSpecial:Diff/1195227944perWP:BRD(previously removed inSpecial:Diff/1195166164), as the descriptor is well-supported byreliable sources.I've also improved the sourcing for the descriptor. PerWP:NPOV,neutrality on Wikipedia entails"representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significantviewsthat have beenpublished by reliable sourceson a topic ",and there is overwhelming agreement among reliable sources thatTruNewsis a fake news website. Please note thatTruNewsis listed inList of fake news websites.—Newslingertalk01:36, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
- C-Class Websites articles
- Low-importance Websites articles
- C-Class Websites articles of Low-importance
- C-Class Computing articles
- Unknown-importance Computing articles
- All Computing articles
- All Websites articles
- C-Class Alternative Views articles
- Low-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- C-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- WikiProject United States articles
- C-Class Conservatism articles
- Low-importance Conservatism articles
- WikiProject Conservatism articles
- C-Class Skepticism articles
- Low-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- C-Class Judaism articles
- Low-importance Judaism articles