65
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: − :''This article was moved and the talk page was not. Here is the link to the original talk page: [[Talk:Fake News]]'' − It looks like we already have a page on this, named [[Fake News]]. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup><small>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</small></sup> 13:32, 30 November 2016 (EST) − :I merged the two. The paragraph on this one is a good intro paragraph, but the body on the other article is superior. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 16:48, 30 November 2016 (EST) − == NYT lies in editorial about Trump's lies == − − Apparently, [http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/06/24/nyt-lies-supposed-trumps-lies-list/ a ''New York Times'' editorial about President Trump's lies has lies]. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (EDT) − :Did we get the NYT retraction on Sarah Palin after the Gabby Gifford's& Scott Scalise shootings? This story illustrates fake news reporting and NYT lies to affect GOP presidential candidate prospects having been going on long before Trump. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 15:58, 25 June 2017 (EDT) − − ==Tapes== − Personally, I don't see were discussion of tapes is news at all until it proven they either exist or were destroyed. Trump never said they existed, and speculation on whether they exist or not is speculation, not news. Hence, literally by definition fake news. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 17:13, 25 June 2017 (EDT) − :I agree, Rob. The classic definition of fake news is "clickbait." For example, "Hollywood is shocked by the loss of [actor]" which people click on to read about [actor]'s death. The actual linked website has nothing to do with [actor] who is still alive. Here, Trump implied there were tapes, and taxpayer dollars were wasted because the White House refuse to admit or deny there were tapes, when asked by Congress and the press. It was a made up story that earned a lot of clicks with "Is Trump as bad as Nixon?" or "Trump's outside counsel will not say if there are tapes." At least with "confefe", Trump took the tweet down after 6 hours, not 6 weeks. I am glad that Conservapedia never accepted the "Trump has been recording White House meetings" theory. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 19:17, 25 June 2017 (EDT) − ::The MSM never accepted the existence of tapes, and it does not seem like Trump every said they existed either. You may not like what Trump did, but that does not justify you adding it here as "fake news." Content yourself with adding it [[White House tapes]], as you already did. You are overeager to add content attacking Trump, whether it means adding the opinions of RINOs (Graham and McCain), or adding the tapes speculation as "fake news." --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 02:30, 26 June 2017 (EDT) − :::1990'sguy is right--it's not "fake news" outright. He never said there were or were not tapes. It could be just a jab at Comey, which he later decided was too unprofessional and retracted. I don't know why he said or retracted it, nor do I know if there are recordings. That's doesn't make it fake news, or clickbait. Other may make fake news out of it, for the purpose of being clickbait. For example, "Trump admits to making secret recordings or private meetings!" That would server both purposes. Why did he say it? I don't know for sure, but his post was not fake news--it was just the basis of others' fake news, which is not his fault. --[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 23:36, 26 June 2017 (EDT) − :::Also, it doesn't matter what the MSM does or does not publish--Trump supports were the subjects, not perpetrators, of numerous incidents of violence. They may be sweeping this under the carpet, but it is our job not to let them succeed completely. Even if they did hire people to pretend to be Trump supporters and cause violence, the truth still exists. Some of it may be too deeply buried to prove, but we need to make an effort.--[[User:DavidB4|<font color="ForestGreen">David B</font>]] <sup>([[User talk:DavidB4|TALK]])</sup> 00:00, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − :::::[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/how-can-you-still-doubt-trumps-intelligence/2017/06/23/6d10aab8-5856-11e7-a204-ad706461fa4f_story.html?utm_term=.8d30268a7d59 Kathleen Parker has the best take on it yet]. Trump baited Comey into leaking. She's says not only was he fired, he's now exposed as the treachous double-dealing liar and subversive that he is with a reputation in the dumpster. Her article is an object lesson now for anyone in Washington wanting to cross Trump. They are not dealing with a politician who's always looking for cover - they're dealing with a businessman who looks toward bottomline results and won't accept failure. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 00:53, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − ::I concede the point. I never thought that the "James Comey better hope there aren't tapes" tweet was fake news; I just wanted to be sure it didn't get totally censored. If it's in a more appropriate place at Conservapedia, that's fine. Publicly threatening a federal official (or, in this case, a former official) is despicable, reprehensible, and totally beneath expected standards for Presidential behavior, but it isn't "fake news". [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − :::I agree with DavidB4, the tweet itself was ''not'' fake news, but during the six weeks while the White House and Trump's outside lawyers refused to clarify whether the tapes existed or not, there was a lot of fake news generated, based on the assumption that there were tapes. [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:31, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − ::::I don't think the media ever accepted the existence of tapes. Them reporting the tapes as fact (like they did on Russian collusion) is debatable as fake news, but I don't recall them ever accepting them as fact. This example is clearly NOT an example of fake news. Also, DavidB4 supported my position of keeping the tape info out of the article. It is enough to add them to the [[White House tapes]] article, as you already did. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:36, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − :::::This whole episode was the birth movement in miniature; one sentence intended to mislead uttered by Obama in 1992 set off decades of speculation. One sentence uttered by Trump intended to be deceptive set off weeks of speculation. In the larger scheme of things both will be forgotten. Keeping it alive by debating who to place the onus on - the president or a gullible public - yields more confusion. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 10:59, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − − == Another usage == − − Before the common usage in the 2016 election cycle, the term "fake news" had been used to describe satirical news media with intentional falsehoods inserted for humorous value rather than malicious deceit (''The Onion'', ''The Daily Show'', ''UnNews'', etc.) Should this usage of the term be incorporated in the article in some fashion? --[[User:Anglican|Anglican]] ([[User talk:Anglican|talk]]) 12:31, 26 June 2017 (EDT) − :Yes. Things like The Onion, The Daily Show, etc., should be listed as pre-2016-election examples of fake news. Basically, they constitute the early transition from supermarket tabloids printed on paper to internet news, before the recent deluge. I'm probably going to work on that. [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 01:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − ==Castro death== − To make fake news understandable to high school age readers, we need clear factual examples. The timing of the death of Castro is not a good example, because of the factual evidence supporting the time of his death. It is possible that there is a grand conspiracy theory about the timing of his death: anti-Castro people spread rumors that he was dead earlier, but there is no evidence of the media misreporting the hard facts. I am deleting this because there are no sources discussing it as "fake news." − − We need to help high school students learn how to think critically about how information is presented to them, particularly on social media and Wikipedia. Thanks, [[User:JDano|JDano]] ([[User talk:JDano|talk]]) 10:23, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − − :So, because of one small issue (Castro, which Andy added and supports keeping -- talk with him), [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fake_news&curid=141385&diff=1356622&oldid=1356619 you changed all this]? This is ridiculous. Your edits have a clear left-wing bias and change the definition of fake news to exclude and/or be more favorable to the MSM. Your changes are opposed by every single other editor. Why do you continue to change it? --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:29, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − − ::Yeah, and besides, need I remind everyone that, if we are to go by news outlets, it was conservatives who killed JFK and not the USSR/Cuba? Or how about how journalistic ethics mandate getting the story even if it means selling your fellow Americans down the river for a few minutes of ambush footage for the news as Mike Wallace tastelessly implied in that Ethics in America segment a while back? If we start trying to use your suggestions, we'll be liberalized like Wikipedia, which we cannot afford. [[User:Pokeria1|Pokeria1]] ([[User talk:Pokeria1|talk]]) 10:34, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − − :::Pokeria1 is correct. JDano, accepting your changes would make CP a politically-correct Wikipedia-lite website. These changes, as seen in the diff I linked just above, do just that. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 10:38, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − − == Suspending edit conflict == − [[User:1990'sguy]], please feel free to "lock" (protect) this entry to suspend edit conflicts. I agree with your position about it.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] ([[User talk:Aschlafly|talk]]) 10:41, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − :Karajou already protected it, but my protection right only allows me to protect articles so only autoconfirmed editors can edit. Since only editors with an account can edit CP in the first place, there is not much use in my right. Thank you for your support. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 11:15, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − − == "Every single other editor disagrees with you. Even SamHB changed his position." == − − I only agreed that ''the tweet itself'' did not constitute fake news. This is because the tweet ("James Comey better hope there aren't tapes") did not make an assertion. He didn't say that the tapes exist, and he didn't say that they don't. So its truth or falsehood couldn't be evaluated, and it can't come under the topic of "fake news". It is simply a public threat against a government official. President Trump and the White House staff are well known for their public excoriation and calumny against other government officials, as in the "some judge on an island in the Pacific" statement. And he wonders why so many people hate him. Perhaps a page on [[despicable, reprehensible, and inexcusably unpresidential behavior of President Trump]] is what is needed, though I won't be holding my breath. − − About John McCain: The fact that he said something that you disagree with doesn't really give you good cause to censor his statements or call him a RINO. If anything that any Conservapedia editor disagrees with got censored, what kind of web site would this place be? And dismissing anyone you disagree with as a RINO (or XINO or PLINO, etc.) is really stupid. It might interest you to know that the [[RINO]] page once listed nearly the entire Republican Senate delegation: [[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=RINO&diff=1065203&oldid=1065202]]. Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. (The [[XINO]] page doesn't present Conservapedia in a very good light either.) [[User:SamHB|SamHB]] ([[User talk:SamHB|talk]]) 13:15, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − :I can agree with everything about the tweet except it being a public threat against a government official. It was a threat against a criminal leaker who formerly occupied the chief position in the largest and formerly most respected law enforcement agency of the federal government. − :As to MCCain, he and Pelosi are both soon headed for greener pastures, that's the consensus internally of both parties. Out of respect for the decades they've given in service to their respective parties, we should ignore everything they say and do in this the period of obvious decline of their mental capacities. The problem the Democrats have however, is a limited bench of substitute talent and leadership. We just need to remain patient momentarily, and not make the embarrassment for either any worse than what it is. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 13:24, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − ::@SamHB:I stand corrected about what you meant. However, you did concede, as [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Fake_news&diff=1356577&oldid=1356576 your comment above] makes clear. Every other editor agrees with me that the WH tapes info is not appropriate here. It has been added to [[White House tapes]], so deleting it here is not censorship. − − ::Every other editor also agreed with me that McCain's opinion should not be added here. I actually opposed adding his opinion mainly because is was giving undue weight to one opinion.[http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Fake_news&diff=1356266&oldid=1356265] The fact that McCain is a RINO (liberal people and RINOs like to mention people like McCain and Graham to "prove" that there is "conservative" opposition to conservatives like Trump, Rand Paul, and Ted Cruz. If you want a better explanation of why I oppose adding comments like this, see [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Conservapedia:Community_Portal&diff=1354355&oldid=1354353 this diff], where I explain why Linsay Graham's opinion was not necessary for an article. Either add sources that give wide analyses of people's opinions ("''Some conservatives/liberals/etc think...''"), or add multiple specific opinions from people with different views. Otherwise, keep it out. − − ::I don't think I'm the only one who believes McCain to be a RINO. Trump is probably the first GOP presidential nominee since Reagan to actually be conservative (based on what he did in office and on his positions relative to the other candidates -- Jeb Bush, Kasich, Rubio, or some other establishment favorite were expected to win). Here is more proof McCain is a RINO: [http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/332721-senate-rejects-repeal-of-obama-drilling-rule] His "Nay" vote was unexpected (the others were) and he single-handedly defeated a measure to repeal an Obama energy regulation. --[[User:1990'sguy|1990'sguy]] ([[User talk:1990'sguy|talk]]) 13:36, 27 June 2017 (EDT) − − :::The fact [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts McCain actively promoted the Trump-Russia scam] to cover his [[Obama_war_crimes#February_2012|own collusion with Hillary/Obama in creating and funding]] of the [[Islamic State]], and abort the honeymoon of Trump's first 100 days, is enough to discredit anything the man says. [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Deep Six the Deep State!'']]</sup> 14:54, 27 June 2017 (EDT)
Blanked the page