Jump to content

Talk:Fake news: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
P.C.: readf wp:not
GavinOram (talk | contribs)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
(No difference)

Latest revision as of 17:49, 24 October 2024


I made an account just to say this page needs work

[edit]

Hello Wikipedia, normally your pages are easy to read. This one is very long and has no table of contents or way to easily navigate it. Sorry I can't help. HeretoCriticize (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The History section is missing the Cold War entirely...

[edit]

...and should be expanded. JackTheSecond (talk) 23:15, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas what should be added?--Jack Upland (talk) 23:26, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been working on the German Service of the BBC for a while and got the impression that the BBC was broadcasting much more reliable news segments than really anyone else. By my impression, Radio propaganda seems to have been a major facet of the Cold War and the truthfulness of the various broadcasts seems to have varied by a lot.
But maybe general propaganda is outside the scope of this article. I don't really know. JackTheSecond (talk) 11:59, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say it is, its why we have a whole article on it. Slatersteven (talk) 12:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's more the amount of additional information that covering the Cold War as well that'd be a problem, probably. Though, because of how the definition at the top does include 'propaganda', maybe we can add a section and include a link to the relevant articles. JackTheSecond (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Fake News" as a thing hardly existed before 2017. There was a proposal in 2005 to delete Fake_News since "propaganda" said it all. IMO, most of the old anecdotes (history, propaganda) should be reduced to pointers to the incidents or general articles. This article should distinguish the SEVERAL usages that have emerged since November, 2016. RichardFloyd (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"the House of Commons commenced an inquiry"

[edit]

... and then what? Did anything come of it? What's the point of mentioning it? WP:NOTNEWS. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:56C:3F16:53EF:5265 (talk) 00:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The quoted section is not in the article. Neither are similar statements. JackTheSecond (talk) 12:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Bloch

[edit]

As you probably know, fake news was a topic this historian dealt with while he was in the trenches in the World War: as a historian he considered that it was not enough for his profession to dismiss them as "okay they are not true, so we are not interested in them," but that they themselves should be the subject of study. Perhaps this item could be related to "fake news" topic ? 151.49.40.45 (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]