The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic.
This article is part of WikiProject Websites, an attempt to create and link together articles about the major websites on the web. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page.WebsitesWikipedia:WikiProject WebsitesTemplate:WikiProject WebsitesWebsites articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative ViewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative ViewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative ViewsAlternative Views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism articles
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
[[Antisemitic canard#Accusations of plotting to control the world|Jewish world domination]] The anchor (#Accusations of plotting to control the world) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
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)[reply]
Vexations 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@JoeyDarks11: 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)[reply]
^Michael M. Grynbaum (January 26, 2020). "Site That Ran Anti-Semitic Remarks Got Passes for Trump Trip". New York Times. Retrieved July 9, 2023. TruNews, which Mr. Wiles founded as an online radio program in 1999 called America's Hope, has a history of spreading conspiracy theories and proclaiming an imminent apocalypse. I
^"TruNews and Rick Wiles: 'End Times' Anti-Semitism and Anti-Zionism". Anti-Defamation League. January 13, 2020. Retrieved February 7, 2020. TruNews is a fundamentalist Christian streaming news and opinion platform that has increasingly featured anti-Semitic and anti-Zionist content, and also has a long record of disseminating radical Islamophobic and anti-LGBTQ messages.
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Sources call it fake, so we do too. Also, WP:QUACK. — Czello(music) 07:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.
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)[reply]
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:RFPButlerBlog (talk) 03:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Butlerblog While 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)[reply]