Talk:fake news

RFV discussion: March 2017
Easy to find cites, but seems SOP--Simplificationalizer (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's SOP. The SOP meaning of the term would be a magazine or tabloid article or radio/TV program that appears to be news, but is not (such as SNL, which is humorous). The actual meaning of the term refers to deception, lying, hoax, conning. Fake news is an attempt (frequently successful) to fool people in order to achieve an unethical end. —Stephen (Talk) 23:22, 10 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Our definition of fake says "Not real; false, fraudulent.", which seems about right in this phrase to me. But this is RFV. User:Simplificationalizer, if your concern is that the phrase is SOP, you should take it to WT:RFD. —Granger (talk · contribs) 23:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I would say delete, if this gets moved to RFD, where it belongs. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 20:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Closing as wrong venue per OP. This has already been posted at RFD (WT:RFD), where it belongs., please weigh in there if you wish. —Μετάknowledge discuss/deeds 03:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

RFD discussion: March–April 2017
Seems SOP--Simplificationalizer (talk) 23:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete current definition. I don't know if there is a different, non-SoP definition that is supportable by citations. Fake news can be found in publications before the entry of the US into WWI in books such as The War Plotters of Wall Street. DCDuring TALK 19:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep but needs a move to RFC. The definition has changed a lot even in recent years – until a year or two ago, it usually referred to the news-format satires like The Onion or The Daily Show. Ƿidsiþ 20:23, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep. With the current US president seemingly engaged in a conscious campaign to shift the definition of the term, it's probably not a bad idea to include it, although the entry could be improved. Pengo (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete per DCDuring, though I could be convinced to reverse that vote. The definition needs to be reworked if there truly is a non-SOP sense. Andrew Sheedy (talk) 03:47, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. The variation in meaning that Widsith mentions is (or should be) covered by fake. If there is truly a verifiable non-SOP definition, I'd like to see it. But this one is not. --WikiTiki89 04:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. - -sche (discuss) 05:28, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. I've modified a definition of fake: to include this as an example. SemperBlotto (talk) 05:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete; definitely SOP. ― PapíDimmi  ( talk | contribs )  19:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Deleted as sum-of-parts. — SMUconlaw (talk) 22:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Etymology and shifting meaning
Originally "fake news" was conspiracy-riddled right-wing blogs but was appropriate by the right wing to mean "actual mainstream news outlets that we don't like". I've had a hard time coming up with sources for this but I remember this dramatic shift in meaning. This is a start: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/17/style/sacha-baron-cohen-maureen-dowd-interview.html —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:50, 17 October 2020 (UTC)

RFD discussion: December 2020–January 2021
Original discussion: Talk:fake_news

Has at least two distinct senses (satire, lies), and possibly three (satire, lies, anything we don't like), depending on whether the third is just an unusual application of the second. Also, has been borrowed into at least three languages.__Gamren (talk) 10:44, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Undelete, of course. >SOP, lemmings &mdash; Dentonius 11:21, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Undelete. It's not just news that's fake, it's also misleading, incredibly partisan etc. presentation of actual news. Definitely a phrase that has taken on a life of its own. — Mnemosientje (t · c) 11:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even have to be misleading or partisan, just something you don't like or don't want to believe. Obvious undelete. BigDom 11:29, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * What was the definition? We cannot give three definitions for, like 1. someone who lies; 2. someone who speaks the truth but is believed to be lying; 3. someone who speaks the truth but is accused of lying. --Lambiam 15:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * The deleted definition: "News articles or stories that are fabricated." I'm sure there's an idiomatic sense out there- but this wasn't it. Chuck Entz (talk) 15:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems a good definition (see e.g. here, where it is a synonym of “bogus news”), but then it is SOP in the same way as fake beard, fake confession and fake money, so Keep deleted. --Lambiam 11:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Might I suggest the following definition: "propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation." &mdash; Dentonius 15:57, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most propaganda, disinformation and misinformation is not presented as a news story, so this would be a very misleading definition. --Lambiam 11:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Lambiam, RT TV is one example of a state-controlled international "news" channel which is really just propaganda, disinformation, and misinformation &mdash; fake news. Not to say, that everything they present is untrue, but they present the truth very selectively. &mdash; Dentonius 14:43, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Most dishes served in restaurants are not steak. Yes, there are restaurants, such as Morton’s in San José, that specialize in serving steak. You should savour their 42 oz. prime porterhouse steak. Notwithstanding this, it remains true that most restaurant dishes are not steak. Defining restaurant dish as “A steak” is not a good idea. --Lambiam 22:24, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * It is literally news that is fake or alleged to be fake. Some of it is deliberate misinformation. Some of it is satire.  Some of it is clickbait presented without concern for its truth.  The meanings blend together to fill much of the space of fake + news.  The phrase is better described by an an encyclopedia than a dictionary.  If the foreign translations were interesting rather than direct borrowings or calques I could see a translation hub.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 18:19, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I feel that we should try to find a way to Undelete this. Mihia (talk) 18:54, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Then think of a way to give a definition that is (a) correct and (b) not a transparent sum of parts. --Lambiam 11:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Just undelete it. I have a feeling the term has gained in popularity since deletion in 2017. Besides that, Lexico has a definition for it. What's good enough for Oxford is good enough for us. DonnanZ (talk) 10:26, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the definition they give is not very good. A story like “Hillary Clinton adopts alien baby – Space creature survived UFO crash in Arkansas!” in the  tabloid of June 15, 1993, is a good example of fake news, a fantastic story spun of whole cloth, presented as news but made up for the sole purpose of to selling more copies. It was not published for politically motivated purposes. Some politicians may claim true news stories that are damaging to them are fabricated for that purpose, but we should not make this part of the definition. Someone using the term claims that the item presented as news is fake, that is, not real, false, bogus, made up. The motives of the publisher are irrelevant for the definition. --Lambiam 11:51, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * In the modern world impulse buying is done online instead of in the supermarket checkout line. The people who write fake news observed that slanted political news got more clicks.  The resulting stories were interpreted as pushing an agenda, but many of them were only soliciting clicks and ad impressions. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Keep deleted. It's a popular phrase without clearly defined special meaning.  We don't have a page for you lie.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the height of laziness. Den Danske Ordbog also thinks it's worth an entry. DonnanZ (talk) 12:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * As a Danish term it is worth an entry because it is a foreign borrowing. Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:52, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * So we need to define the term properly in an English entry, if it is considered important enough to be borrowed. DonnanZ (talk) 13:03, 23 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Undelete. It's more complicated than simply fake + news. —Mahāgaja · talk 14:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Undelete, but we need helluva good definition and possibly a protection of the page – think that it's going to be a highly trafficked page, prone to be altered depending on the editor's personal political beliefs. --Robbie SWE (talk) 14:56, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 2A02:2788:A4:205:5D5B:FEA7:3F:5045 15:02, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a chance we can reach consensus on a new definition before we decide to undelete? The old definition was, basically, “news that is fake”. Restoring a definition that blares “SOP” appears undesirable. --Lambiam 22:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Do we want to do lexicography or do we just want to close our eyes and imagine what words are? Collect some citations and figure out what they mean. DTLHS (talk) 22:42, 23 December 2020 (UTC)
 * We could start with some other dictionaries. This is what they have:
 * "false stories that appear to be news, spread on the internet or using other media, usually created to influence political views or as a joke" dictionary.cambridge.org
 * "sense 1: false news stories for the purpose of generating revenue, or promoting or discrediting " dictionary.com There are two other senses referring to parodies and a dismissal tactic in conversations.
 * Our own Wikipedia points out "Propaganda can also be fake news." source: Guardian; What is fake news?
 * But I think the important question we should be asking is why have other dictionaries included this term? What value do they see in it? Do we want to be less than them? &mdash; Dentonius 08:47, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Apart from my wondering about Donald Trump's definition of fake news, Merriam-Webster discusses the history of the term, but says it has stopped short of creating an entry.
 * Apart from that, do we have consensus for undeletion? DonnanZ (talk) 00:35, 25 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Undelete provided that the restored version will be defined better. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  09:25, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * How do you feel about reusing the two definitions in the Danish section?__Gamren (talk) 11:06, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, it seems a good point of departure. ←₰-→ Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  16:21, 25 December 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, do it. Once it is undeleted it can be tinkered with/added to. Edit protection against IPs is probably a good idea, as suggested above somewhere. DonnanZ (talk) 11:48, 26 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Undelete. Sad to see that Danish has to serve as stand-in, I'm sure some people look at it without realizing they're actually reading a Danish entry. – Jberkel 18:26, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * I think we should have an entry. It doesn't usually refer to news made up for any old reason, but to propaganda. Equinox ◑ 20:35, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Undeleted, but currently only the two senses: satire and lies.__Gamren (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

"fake news"
Isn't this missing the definition of "news that us unfavorable towards a particular viewpoint" ? (news someone doesn't like) -- 65.92.246.43 01:23, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

RFV discussion: August 2020–May 2023
Dutch. Rfv-sense "any news considered insufficiently flattering by populists [from 2016 or 2017]". Very specific definition, and the wording makes me suspect it's a jab at a particular politician that some editor doesn't like.__Gamren (talk) 09:54, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * This is the sense in which populist politicians generally use the term; just read the Wikipedia article . Dutch politicians are no exception. So there is no strong reason to think the editor had any specific politician in mind. Instead of “insufficiently flattering” I think the term denotes, rather, news for which it is more convenient for the speaker if it can be discarded as not being true. I am not sure why we do not have an English entry, but as used in the sense of “it's all, folks — so dishonest....” it is not the more usual sense of a hoax news item (“NASA: Mysterious UFO appears to 'sit and watch' Hubble telescope”; “Mother-of-ten (aged 77) pregnant with triplets – doctors are baffled”; “VP Shoots Fellow Hunter: Cheney peppers Texas lawyer with birdshot during quail hunt”*) --Lambiam 17:12, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * 
 * * O, wait, that one was actual news. But here is a bonus made-up story.


 * I'm not sure if the "news I don't want to be true" sense is the same as "fabricated news", or if we want to add a sense "2. false news." Certainly there are news stories I don't consider "fake news" that have been called such, but you have to get into the speaker's head to know the intended meaning.  If I call evolution or quantum field theory or N-rays pseudoscience, have I created a new sense of pseudoscience or used the existing sense in a way some people disagree with?  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 12:44, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, perhaps we can think about like this: Would it make sense for a politician to outright tell her constituency "this may be true, but if it were found to be true, it would undermine my policies, therefore we should agree to disregard it"? Certainly they would not take her seriously! Alternatively, I found an article claiming to debunk Trump's accusations of fake news. The authors of this article clearly understand those accusations to regard veracity rather than political usefulness. I definitely think the intent behind describing something as fake news is that it contains information known to be untrue. I wouldn't mind if a usage note was added explaining that the term has a history of being misapplied by politicians to demonstrably true information.__Gamren (talk) 23:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * If use in Dutch is like use in English I would add a usage note rather than a definition. It functions as an emphatic denial like calling something a lie.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 14:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Not true, this term pops up in relation to a number of populists who use it as a generic buzzword to discredit unflattering news. This sense is encountered often if you follow Dutch-language news and it genuinely seems distinct from sense 1. Politicians who use it generally seem uninterested in actually demonstrating falsehoods in news, for one. I also think it is poor form to speculate about the political motivations of other editors. Anyway, here are some hits, though some are less than ideal (mentions/mentionlike, only used in titles):       It is a sense you hear relatively frequently on broadcast media. Searching on Google is hampered because the results also include nepnieuws, even if you use quotation marks. Perhaps the definition is too narrow, because the term is also used in this way by the Chinese communists. "[P]opulists and autocrats", perchance? But that will likely attract more outrage and vandalism. ←₰-→  Lingo Bingo Dingo (talk)  15:06, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

look
 * Do Chinese politicians really use this word, while speaking Chinese, or do they use some Chinese wording that gets translated as "fake news" by Anglophone media?__Gamren (talk) 20:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * There may have been an even earlier sense of the term in which no malicious intent (except making money) was implied .... it was simply auto-generated clickbait that looked like news. "Why These Celebrities Have Never Played Cards", etc. The first political sense came later, and the second political sense came after the first. I can't confirm this, though.  I just remember stubbornly resisting what I thought was a misuse of the term and then eventually conceding that I couldn't say 99% of the world was using it wrong. — Soap — 14:55, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * RFV failed. No citations added in almost three years.  I will add a usage note.  Vox Sciurorum (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)